“Lynn”– God in the Rear-view Mirror

Lynn is a member of The Clergy Project as one of the small but growing number of female clergy. Lynn is a current participant in the 2nd phase of the Daniel Dennet/Linda LaScola study sponsored by Tufts University and The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science on Pastors who no Longer Believe. Lynn has been featured along with Dan Barker on The Thinking Atheist’s Radio Show entitled, “Pastors Who Believe” and in the RDFRS article on The Clergy Project.

One other interesting note about Lynn… Lynn is the Agnostic Pastor.

Let me share my story.

God in the Rear-view Mirror

Life takes many strange turns. In my life, If you would have told me ten years ago that I would be writing a story about my journey from faith to atheism, I’d probably called the elders of my church and held an all night prayer meeting for your soul! Yet, here I am. An active pastor, well-known, well-respected and an atheist. I didn’t start out thinking that I would lose my faith. As a matter of fact, I believed that my faith was so strong that it could withstand anything. It turns out that it could withstand most things, but not the truth. You see, I followed Christ all these years thinking he was the truth but I’ve finally realized recently that the faith I’d followed all those years was just a house of cards. Whoosh! A puff of the wind of reason and they all come tumblin’ down.

My story is probably similar to many you’ve heard before.  I grew up as a PK, a preacher’s kid. But unlike some of the ones who were wild, I was just the opposite. I was 100% sold out for God. I loved church, I love God, I loved being a believer. I felt ‘called’ into ministry at a very early age. I spent the majority of my young life and early adulthood pursing ministry. When I finally accepted my first pastorate, I was filled with such excitement! I was going to change the world for Christ! Preaching the gospel to all those souls bound for hell was my passion. I could feel god speaking through me and many people made professions of faith or experienced god’s work in their lives. Now before you think that I’m way too full of myself, let me explain. The argument has been put forth that those of us who have walked away from our faith never really had a true experience with god. As you can see from what I’ve shared, I had an experience! If I wasn’t a true believer, then no one was. I was just as sold out and on fire for god as anyone I knew! So what went wrong?

I’ve had questions for a long time now. Little things in the Bible would pop up and cause me to question. But like a good little Christian, I told myself that ‘god’s ways were higher than my ways’ so how could I, a mere mortal, understand the ways of god. So I filled these questions away in a safe little drawer in the back of my mind. Time would pass and I’d do pretty well for a while and then another question would pop up. Those questions would be relegated to the special little drawer in the back of my mind again. You know the kind of questions I’m talking about. The ones where the Bible is contradictory, so we skip those passages. Or the ones that are so tough, you hope no one ever asks you! Like, “Where was god when the earthquake, tsunami, hurricane hit and killed so many innocent people?” or “How could god condemn someone to hell who has never even heard of him?” Those questions. When those thoughts came back, I’d banish them to their dungeon. The problem with that special little space where I filed all the questions and doubts was that it started to fill up. About ten years ago, the drawer was so full that it began to overflow into my mind. I couldn’t tuck things away and ignore them. I was forced to peek out of my spiritual fog and begin dealing with the questions.

I began a crusade of sorts, digging through any information that I could find to work out my questions. Honestly, I started this journey of discovery to find a way to answer the questions from a spiritual standpoint. I still believed when I began working through all of this that the process would make me that much stronger in my faith. I didn’t realize that this process of discovery would be the very path that led me out of the fog of faith and into the light of reason. Piece by piece as I dug through those drawers, my faith began to change. At first, I simply morphed into a different kind of Christian. I became a liberal and then, when that didn’t answer the questions, I moved into the emergent church arena. Little by little as I grew in my knowledge, the light began to dawn on me.

I considered myself an ‘agnostic Christian’ at first. That was kind of safe… I could handle that. It wasn’t long before the ‘Christian’ part of it went away and I was just agnostic. As a matter of fact, when I began this website (The Agnostic Pastor) and became a part of The Clergy Project, I considered myself an agnostic. I guess the big “A” word was just to hard for me to accept then. Looking back, I can see that I’d actually been an atheist for some time, I just didn’t realize it.

Now, here I am. A pastor and an atheist. This has to be the hardest thing I’ve ever gone through. I look forward to the day when I can hop in my car and leave god in the rearview mirror. I have a plan…I’m working hard to get out…but for now I must remain in hiding. My time will come and then I can be real for a change!

~Lynn

 

UPDATE:  I’m very happy to say that I no longer have to live a lie.  My struggle with all this led me to take the step that needed to be taken and leave the ministry.  I’m no longer a pastor.  Many may question the steps I’ve taken…I’ve had questions myself.  But the things I did and the steps I’ve taken were to create as safe an exit as possible.

I know that there are those who will attack these decisions.  I hope you understand the torture that the realization that I’d lost my faith inflicted upon me.  I made my exit as quickly as possible after I’d become convinced that I no longer believed.

 

146 thoughts on ““Lynn”– God in the Rear-view Mirror”

  2. Thanks, Lynn! I was never clergy, but I too asked questions and filed them away.

    I look forward to hearing about your new adventures – when all of the freedom in your mind becomes real in your life.

  4. Lynn, by the way that is my spouse’s  name, I admire your courage and fortitude. I am a grumpy old man who has watched the veil of human  slavery drop all too slowly for his liking. I have become totally open about removing the shackles of unfounded belief toward preventing human bondage. But, I must admit that I probably would cower at what you must be facing internally and externally. I was fortunate enough to have had my epiphany early in life and never had to face the inner conflict you must be dealing with. 

    Evan as a confessed athirst I never pushed my personal belief as strongly as I felt religions were pushing theirs. The will to actually try and enlighten others of what I knew to be true did not come until much later in my life. It took a long time for me to study and understand the true beauty of the universe unfolding before I could gather the courage to confront religion.

    I know this is an unpleasant path you take but, as with all truth, it too will become well worth the struggle. It will bring you peace of mind and a new goal in life; one that really matters to the survival and advancement of humanity. I wish you the very best and every success in your future endeavors.

    • Lynn, in follow-up to my previous post outlining my understanding of religion, I offer this one point on spirituality that may be of use in shaping your new path.

      We may all be happy some day to pass-on the torch of human survival to the next generations. Whether our consciousness continues ( there is little scientific or physical evidence to support this theory) or, our individual consciousness loses its individuality and melds with a universal consciousness ( there is more definitive evidence supporting this theory within life and nature), will be a question for science to prove or disprove.
      As you once told your flock in good faith and honesty, and without any disrespect on my part, God speed!

  5. Lynn, I wish you well.

    I can’t help wondering, though, how might a little pulpit-based foray into the Gospel of Thomas work with your congregation? I have a gut feeling (must be careful with those gut feelings) that some of your people might be shaken loose from the morbidity that is the bible.

    If anything, it might make for an interesting experiment. Best wishes.

  6. I don’t think ‘not wanting to admit it’ quite expresses the sincerity your heart feels about a devotion to a character it thought real and now is divorcing itself from? Till death us do part? The emotions take time to digest what the mind suspects as an inevitable outcome and evenso are pained, by this deception of the loyal self. To have devoted oneself, and sacrificed so much, to a lie, is a tragedy only comforted by the escape from shackles and knowing others in large numbers have been just as easily tricked. The comfort is bitter though, since the gravity of this position is acrid in others behalf. Why should we idly let this continue to deceive sincerely motivated others? – becomes a pressing concern but yet further disarmed by their collective delusions alienating them from your certainties that they would appreciate your well intended kindnesses. The trick that you have been tricked continues past the point of your arrival out the other side. Be careful not to shoot yourself in the foot too soon, for this lies in wait also! In a way you are now like a loaded gun. The irony is painfully amusing and even moreso when you realise theisms corridors know these states of mind only too well, which is how they lasted so long. When you ride out, make sure you have a destination – a sustainable foundation for the rest of your life. Then you can worry less about your circumstance and be useful to others too. The rational trap of circumstance you are currently in, is likely only sweetened due the minds freedoms. How demeaning to be trapped as a hypocrite to ones own circumstance playing a role of self deception one had denied all association with – An Atheist Queen.

    Best wishes,

    Ray

  8. This is a stone cold classic line, ‘Lynn’…

    …” The problem with that special little space where I filed all the questions and doubts was that it started to fill up. About ten years ago, the drawer was so full that it began to overflow into my mind. I couldn’t tuck things away and ignore them.”

    The image of the overflowing drawer is so apt, so telling. Thank you for sharing. I sincerely hope your example proves a catalyst for others caught as rationalists in pastor’s clothing!

  9. I came over here from http://www.richarddawkins.net. This was a very interesting read. If someone as convinced as you were of the existence of a god can abandon that belief, then there is some hope that religion will someday lose its grip on American life. I know you are under a lot of pressure from your own conscience, but I have to add my small voice: the longer you live the outward life of a believer and hide your true self from others, the longer you will be perpetuating the grip of faith on your parishioners and other believers. I think ministers like you who have invested in and reaped the most benefits from religion have a responsibility to publicly “recant” and to try to undo the damage that has been caused. For example, the pervasive discrimination that women still face today is largely due to prejudices inculcated by religion. How can one continue in its service for even one more day? Thanks for reading and I wish you real peace of mind and the happiness that follows.

    • Dear Lynn,
      Thank you for sharing your thoughts and doubts and most recent decision. As a questioning Christian, I often wonder about priests, pastors, bishops and likely even popes, that have struggled with a loss of faith following a lifetimes investment in christianity. I feel for you.

      I can swing freely back and forth and be honest about my doubt, your position, not so easy. I understand the approval you will recieve on rd.net for your recent decision.

      Here is where I lose sympathy.. your idea that it would be a hoot to post the pulpit announcement on youtube.

      Doubtless it would cause a shock, and likely go viral, but only because you are living a lie.

      Even athiests have doubts. Anthony Flew would be an example of somone moving in the other direction. He, like you, must have experienced a period of discord and a growing drawer of doubts. Please maintain your dignity, and step down respectably. Do it soon.

      I hope you find peace in your search for the truth.

      Tony D

      ps. Think i,ll follow your website.

      • Tony, thanks for your comments. I can assure you that my exit will be a quiet, gracious exit. My comments about YouTube were just a joke.

        I’m happy that you’re here and following the site. I admire anyone who chooses to think for themselves and not just believe what others tell them to.

        Keep thinking!

        ~AP

    • The world we know and love thrives on sensationalism. Your departure from the church published on YouTube would certainly be a sensation. This would catapult your fame within atheism, and beyond, to the level of that attributed to Richard Dawkins.
      Such an event would certainly have to be with the informed concent of your family, church followers and all others participating. It would undoubtably result in a huge upheaval and drastic change in your present lifestyle. But, if you are equal to the task and willing to defend your dignity and respectability to your detractors, it would probably bring enlightenment more rapidly to many still suffering religious human bondage.

  10. Thank you for that personal and inspiring account. I really sympathize with you and wish you all the best for your future path

    • I can’t answer your question for Lynn of The Agnostic Pastor. However, I can answer for myself (fromer pastor, now atheist, also member of The Clergy Project) and based on other stories of others I know.

      The short answer is that it is too dangerous. In many, if not most churches, even some more liberal and progressive, if you come out as an atheist or agnostic, you will most likely lose your job. You also may lose you spouse, the marriage and any friends or support you might have enjoyed as a “Christian”.

      Most pastors have only theological training. I can tell you from experience that training does not provide you with any knowledge or job experience you can take out of the church to make a living. In short, you can lose everything and it can happen in a heart beat.

      You might think the church and the Christian community would be more compassionate and supportive; not at all! You will more likely be ostracized and shunned.

  12. Thank you for sharing your story. I wonder, though, how you manage to write a sermon each week. How do you find the words to square this circle? It must be a terrible strain on you.
    More strength to you to finally break free.

  13. Hi Lynn, thanks from me too. I’ve never been an academic Christian, but over the last decade or so it has dawned on me just how comprehensive the sham of religion is, and how little religions have really evolved in the time since other forms of social control like government have come into place. I really fear for the USA with it’s huge store of violent power and an apparently growing population of blind faithful. Those fears grow as we read of arguments among educators about evolution vs. creation vs. intelligent design. It is a very profound indictment on the US education system itself, that the argument is even entertained!

    The riches held by churches and the economic powers derived from them are quite repugnant; how many fresh wells could be dug in sub-saharan Africa (for example) if the Vatican sold some art. There must be some sods at the top of the hierarchy counting the money and wielding influence, and one has to question their moral compass. In New Zealand where I live, I’ve been told the largest land owner here is the Government, second is the Catholic church, and third is the Anglican (the tradition I was brought up in). Damn, that needle must be huge! I always found it repugnant that one particular church has political privilege through the ‘diplomacy’ of Holy See diplomats. It’s kind of an ‘emperor has no clothes’ situation among other diplomats where everyone knows it’s a sham but the price of rejection is pragmatically considered too high.

    You will know that religiousity becomes more pervasive when economic and social conditions are tougher, and I hope that you can migrate into a social world that affirms your atheism in a country that to me appears to lobbying itself into a kind of proxy Christian totalitarianism against a background of growing poverty and increasing inequity. The great sadness for me is that at a personal level the motivations of the faithful are often altruistic, yet the institutions sour the delivery of such altruism and capitalise on the generosity of believers using fear as the motivator to give money.

    Brava to you Lynn, and every wish for your continued strength and questioning.

    • Howie,

      I imagine it probably looks like that is true in the US, but religious faith IS on the decline here, even since the G.W. days just a few years ago, and even despite an awful economy. For whatever reason–modernity, scientific knowledge, borrowed boldness from other civil rights movements, etc–the percentage of Americans who identify as a particular religion is decreasing while the percentage of people willing to identify as non-believers is increasing. What you’re seeing is just the latest cycle (and we Americans are nothing if not predictably cyclical) of “death-throes” , albeit EXTREMELY loud death-throes. True enough, a crazy right-wing Theocrat has won half of all of a major party’s Presidential primary/caucus races so far in 2012, but the VAST majority of Americans recognize him as a loon. Rick Santorum will NOT be President of the United States. Their influence is waning, even if their volume is not.

      • You’re right, religious faith is on the decline. The Clergy Project is a good example of this. We currently have 196 non-believing clergy. I’m sure there are many more out there who either haven’t heard of the project or who are too afraid to say anything.

        ~AP

  14. I wasn’t a PK, I was ‘recruited’ from the age of 5, via my state school, plied with good times, games and a close community, finally being ‘born again’ at 14. All because of a local well meaning Baptist Minister.

    Like you I went for the whole hog, and also was heading ( I thought) for the ministry, I even had an evangelical rock band and went out saving souls at 15. All in 1970′s UK.

    Although I walked away from it all in my early 20′s, I didn’t finally have the courage to admit that I am an atheist until two years ago, and I’m proud of it. It had up until then just seemed like a taboo, that shouldn’t be visited.

    Six months ago I had a breakdown, it seems all of the indoctrination, the parts that had become a part of who I am were finally able to come out and be discarded.I have recently used the same ‘house of cards’ phrase to explain it to my family (all non believers) who have struggled to understand the powerfull influence well meaning but misguided adults had had on my formative years. Indoctrination of the young by even the most caring and well meaning believer, is wrong, I have had a near lifetime of stuggles as a result.

    AT 51, I am now hoping to begin a campaign of sorts in the UK, it’s purpose being to educate believers intounderstanding the damage that imposing their views on the impressionable can lead to.

    I admire your courage and your honesty Lynn, I echo the call to give your real identity. It’s a huge step but it will set you completly free.

  15. Pingback: “Lynn”– God in the Rear-view Mirror | The Atheist

  16. Dear “Lynn”,
    Thank you for sharing your story.

    MY WIFE IS A PASTOR at a liberal (rather postmodern/quasi-emergent) church, but she is still very much a believer. I have recently started identifying as an atheist, but I haven’t found faith tenable for several years now. I’ve been able to ‘come out’ to very few people about this, as my atheism poses a real threat to my wife’s employment.

    My apostasy has been incredibly difficult for my wife to handle. On the flip side of that, her credulity as well as the threat that I feel the Bible and Christian theology in general pose to our children’s wellbeing has been incredibly difficult for me to handle (esp. with regard to the trauma inflicted by my fundamentalist upbringing). We’ve had some pretty explosive arguments over this, particularly in how we can parent together. Our marriage was in shambles over this as of this past autumn, but we are actively working to rebuild something together.

    My wife is very intelligent and loving, and it’s not as though she’s unaware of these issues – she just can’t be bothered to think about them because apparently there are other more important things to think about and do. Regardless, I don’t understand how it is that she can continue to ignore these issues so blithely; I tried to ignore them for many years, but eventually my intellect demanded a hearing.

    I have actively challenged her on MANY different articles of Faith, traditions, scriptural historicity/interpretation, miracles, and concepts of truth, but she takes great offense at any skepticism.
    I don’t necessarily want her to lose her Faith, I just want to know that she is actively pondering these issues rather than just chalking them up to “mystery”, which I see as the lazy way out.

    If you have any suggestions about how to approach her on these issues, I would greatly appreciate it.

    p.s. I, too, found your site through http://www.richarddawkins.net.

    • AP,
      Thank you for your thoughtful and compassionate reply. Your phrase “Allowing our spouses to find their own way is the best gift we can give them.” is ring around in my head right now, and it’s really connecting with my situation.

      I think you’re right about the role her position is playing in her ability to ignore certain things. I do my best not to confront her about religion anymore, mostly for the sake of our marriage. At the same time, it’s painful for me to watch her walk on eggshells as she tries to navigate the complexities of (1) helping lead a very diverse congregation, (2) affirming the [often ignorant/oppressive] policies and theology of our denomination, and (3) living in a manner that is true to herself; which are often in conflict. In some ways (but to a lesser extent) I have to navigate these complexities too. It’s all SO unnecessary.

      For me, the irony of being free from theology, but still feeling imprisoned by religious/church life is maddening, as I know you can appreciate.

      Keep up the good work!

      - AHA

    • And yes, not being able to speak openly with one’s spouse about the most deeply meaningful and moving aspects of your life IS “really hard”, and I would add “tragic”. I know that my wife and I BOTH feel this way from our own perspectives.

      -AHA

  17. Mainly for “A Hopeful Atheist”, but also for many others out there struggling with being “unequally yoked”, Ken Daniels’ book “Why I Believed – Reflections of a Former Missionary” is currently only 79p on Kindle (in UK), and is a really helpful read for Christians trying to understand why apostates turn from faith, as well as a marvellous support for those of us atheists who have, as far as religion is concerned, been there, done that and got the T-shirt.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_2_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=why+i+believed+reflections+of+a+former+missionary&sprefix=why+i+believed%2Caps%2C709

    • Shane,
      Thank you for the recommendation! Funnily enough, I’m In the middle of reading that VERY book, and I’m enjoying it a lot. If only I could get my wife to read it.

  18. I’m actually a friend of a friend of A Hopeful Athiest (and 1st level Facebook friends, since we share so many stories with each other–like your post which he shared with me), and ironically, and old classmate of his wife from a Christian college.

    I was lucky enough to realize that I was an atheist (my question vault filled up) at that very college at the age of 18. Before that I was pretty sure I wanted to be a minister myself. I consider myself very fortunate that I was able to avoid making a career and entire adult identity out of being a religious leader before entering the light of Reason.

    I do not envy either of you the difficulties that coming to the truth later in life and after having grown up so deeply entwined in faith. I wonder if it’s an “inverse-squared” formula? The longer you’re in, it’s that much tougher to get out. I can think of few other identities that one can have that more strongly identify just what a person thinks than “Pastor,” (or “Pastor’s husband”) and to retain that title without the presumed “mindset” must be excruciating.

    However, having now lived nearly half of my life as an “out-of-the-closet” atheist, let me simply encourage you that nothing compares to the simple peace and joy of living your truth. To be sure, you are going to lose a lot of “fellowship,” but being true to yourself, honestly stating what you really think, not what you’re expected, and now being able to fully embrace this one-and-only life on this planet is SOOOO worth the pain of leaving your old life behind.

    • Mark,
      Thanks for your comments! I look forward to the time (soon hopefully) when i can enjoy what you said in your post This line, “let me simply encourage you that nothing compares to the simple peace and joy of living your truth” will stick with me! I love it!

      ~AP

  19. Oh, and I gotta say, I’m currently reading “Parenting Beyond Belief” edited by Dale McGowan and there is a great article in there by an atheist parent with a theist spouse about how they manage to find the common ground on which to raise their kids together..happily! My wife and I are expecting our first, and we’re fortunate to share an atheistic worldview, but I imagine it would be helpful to anyone going through the same conflict.

  20. I admire your courage in following your questions. It is so difficult — you really are strong to haul that stuff out of your drawers and go through it. I wonder if some of the most angry and self-righteous among us are working so hard to keep those drawers shut any little piece of doubt threatens their whole structure, so they have to keep telling the rest of us not to ask questions. My heart is with you.

    • Thank you for your support. So many times people want to judge and criticize without considering the difficulty of coming out. You know, that actually sounds like the response that most religions offer. You’d think that as those who’ve walked away from that stuff and chosen to embrace reason that we wouldn’t be so quick to judge.

      Again, I thank you for standing by me and all the others who are working on coming out.

      ~AP

      • I don’t think anyone could honestly judge you (or anyone else) on the issues of coming out. Sometimes non-theistic folks are just as judgmental as people of religions, just about other things! One thing no one can decide for you, for instance, is what your family of origin would do — how they might react, what that could do to the balance of your life. I can say a little hear, because my ex is gay, which he hid from himself and others for many, many years — coming out was fraught with terror for him (which I did not understand at the time), fearing that my parents would hate him, his mother would reject him, his brother would cut him off. Sure, I was his wife, and his children are his children, but those other relationships are very important, too. Fortunately all of the people in our lives were supportive and worked really hard at understanding what this meant for us/him/out girls. It was a process, which we may still be navigating after all these years. <3

  21. Hopeful Atheist, that sounds so difficult for you. Maybe if you continue on your marriage a while your wife will fill up her basement with things she can’t be bothered to think about and she will have to think, like AP had to do. I guess that sounds like a long process. I do see a strength in you in that you are there for your children — you didn’t just walk. You will be better able to protect them from the abuses religion can inflict, perhaps, by being there, telling them about your own experiences (not the details, if you don’t think it appropriate, but some version of “I always hated that myself,” or something.) You can take the high road of not putting her down in front of them (which you would probably do if you divorced) — I’m babbling. I have not been here, exactly. But I admire you for working on this issue.

    • I mean, you would probably take the high road if you divorced — it is recommended — not that you would put her down — that is not very clear in my phrasing.

  22. Lynn, atheism is not a belief or rejection of belief. It is simply an exercise in accepting proven natural truths. The following argument may be useful in shaping your future decisions toward helping others.

    There is no argument that the Bible, Koran, Torah,  etc. offer very valid values reflecting human societies. They were written by very intelligent, though uninformed minds. Religions were created from a source of ignorance concerning the evolution of the universe itself. Humanity, even today, is still vastly ignorant of natures laws but, we have come a long way from religious belief. 

    The basic human values of these tenets, and similar mindsets in all animals, are necessary for any sentient species to survive and evolve in the universe. Without these necessary moral constraints chaos and disorder would severely limit survival of that species. The largest detraction of religious tenets is the inward view of self preservation rather than natures law supporting survival of the species.  In large part, except in Hindu religions, they all but ignore nature in favor of cleansing the soul.

    There is no reality in good and evil. They are simply,  words to describe day to day threats and advantages in vying for ones survival. In our rapid assent to superiority humanity has become the largest “evil” facing nature today. On our present course of raping the environment to meet our need for greed, we will eventually render ourselves extinct. This would be the epitome of sin against nature, or god if he existed. We are already guilty of destroying other species on earth. I find this impossible to accept from any species feigning belief in intelligent design.

    Religion is constantly used by greedy industrialists and governments to sway public opinion toward this unsustainable path. Meanwhile, keeping the unsuspecting masses in relative ignorance and constant fear. Moral values are defined by nature, not gods. If you feel it necessary to believe in god, choose nature as your god.

  23. Lynn –

    It probably goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway:

    I hope you realise that when you do make that decision to break away from your current situation that there is a whole community out there to support you. Not just this virtual community, but, I suspect, a group of people willing to lend emotional, physical and practical support as well.

    I would lay money that if you had to reach out you would find accommodation in people’s hearts and their homes.

    I have seen many couples and individuals damaged by their involvement in religion. Not one of them has ever said they were glad they waited a long time before making the break!!

    If you are worried about the backlash from your current circle then anything they say or do to hurt or ostracise you says more about them then it does about you.

    Good luck.

    • Scifi1, you brought tears to my eyes! Thank you, thank you, thank you! You’re support means the world to me. Honestly, through this website and The Clergy Project, I’ve felt more love and support than in all the years I spent in religion.

      Thank you again!

      ~AP

  24. A lot depends on the nature of your current situation. I regard myself (often) as an Atheistic Christian; I regard that “vertical” relationship I used to think I had with God to be more than adequately fulfilled by horizontal relationships with my friends and family, and the old legends, parables, wisdom literature and follies and atrocities in the bible are part of my context.

    When the Necker-cube of “faith” pops and we see it as it really is, we really need to concentrate on the horizontals, and that often includes our friends at church as well as elsewhere. I think there is a role for pastors who don’t believe in the gods, and (as I’m exploring at http://churchofjesuschristatheist.blogspot.com ) I think much of the good of Christianity can continue to be accessible from an atheistic viewpoint.

    Indeed, I would go further – I think it is only possible to be a good Christian if you let go of the whole idea of “God” or of the resurrection of Jesus. It allows you to see the Bible in a completely new light – warts and all.

    Another thing is that many people think they are the only ones going through this process – certainly no-one talks about it in church – but in reality there are many many more Christians out there who are at different stages in this journey, and it takes for them to have considerable bravery to share it, even (especially!) with their nearest and dearest. I’ve had many quiet conversations along these lines.

    So you’re not alone, and I’ll bet you are doing a great job as a great pastor!

  25. Thanks for your reply,

    I am a little unsettled about the portrayal and perception of “believers” and “the church.”
    Having thought about ‘religion’ and philosophy for more than half my life, I have formed the opinion that the bible is far from the inerrant word of God. Much of Christian theology is, in my opinion, philosophically weak.
    I also teach Physics and while I am fully conversant with theories of singularities, quantum fluctuations and big bangs, which I fully accept. I find some of the arguments of Hawking, Dawkins and Atkins to be “begging the question,” or even disingenuous.
    The “church” is full of people. They like other groups, have “saints” and “sinners.”
    They have ardent believers, hopefuls, doubters and, regrettably, trapped atheists, like yourself.
    They have those who claim themselves to be liberated by their faith and those that feel oppressed.
    I have been swinging between monotheist Christian (catholic) to Agnostic. I left the church and returned.
    Some of the comments that I read here suggest that religion is nothing but an evil lie, and “the faithful” are little more than unthinking hypocritical judgemental zealots.
    You may find support and understanding from unexpected quarters.
    I understand that trapped atheists will have huge criticisms and feel huge liberation in breaking free – perhaps I should accept their comments in that light.
    Atheism, for me, offers cold comfort. It also leaves me with unanswered questions and unpalatable questions about morality.
    The atheist community will, if you forgive the parallel, have “saints” and “sinners.”
    I find that some of them can be as zealous, vitriolic and judgemental.

    For me, I am happy that I am free to think and I am largely free to express myself. I understand that you will soon feel that liberation to.
    Belief, for me, is not a choice, it is a conviction.
    I will keep thinking. It’s what I do.
    I wish you happiness in your new found liberty.
    Tony D

    • Tony D, like all humanity, you must struggle with survival in nature and your individual grasp on reality and sanity. I believe that science will prove that moral consciousness is a universal law of nature applied equally to all sencient life formes in the universe. It is present in nature as surely as our survival instincts. Please take the time to read my posts on this blog and if you feel comfortable with my observations you may consider further one on one discussion. We are all zealots, especially the religious, when defending our personal grasp on sanity.

      • Thanks Al,

        I think for an athiest, morality must be an emergent property that is highly subjective.
        I agree that, for all sentient beings, that form cooperative societies, that there will be a tendency to form debatable, but broadly similar moral codes. Sorry, but without God, there can be no “universal law.” I am not suggesting that Athiests are less moral than God believers. We all probably agree on many laws that appear universal. A moments thought can equally result in a valid claim that “This stuff is junk! Think for yourself!”(Pardon my cheeky misquote, Lynn).
        I remember debating with an atheist on another thread (I then Identified myself as a theist.) I don’t know what I am now, but I often find myself defending deism.
        On asking him “When did it become wrong to steal my neighbours bananas.” Or something like that I tried googling and could find nothing of the original thread, he responded, very reasonably, “When you realised that it was wrong.” Seemingly convincing, but the atheist truth is its not wrong, never was and never! When you think about it stealing my neighbours bananas is just another way to play the survival game. If your neurons have not realised this then “Sucks to be you!” Just don’t get caught or if you get caught, kill him. You said yourself, “There is no reality in good and evil. They are simply, words.”
        Atheists cannot appeal to moral absolutes. To them there are none. There are only consequences. Altruism is neural misfiring. Altruism is folly.
        I find this, among other things, to be unpalatable, but acknowledge that does not mean it is not so.

        Peace
        Tony D

    • Perhaps you should try Sam Harris’ book “The Moral Landscape”, it might help you sort out some of the moral problems you worry about.

  26. Sorry I’m new to this site and the above was meant to be a response to an earlier post, apparently this is not doable here. Remove it if you like.

  27. I read your story with interst and do wish you well, but cannot help thinking that the problem lays not so much with the Christian religion but with the immature interpretation of it. Things like :
    “You know the kind of questions I’m talking about. The ones where the Bible is contradictory, so we skip those passages. Or the ones that are so tough, you hope no one ever asks you! Like, “Where was god when the earthquake, tsunami, hurricane hit and killed so many innocent people?”
    I mean, I cannot call my self a Christian but contradictory passages in the Bible? Where was god when the hurricane hit? What sort of god are you talking about? A man with a beard in the sky? This can only cause doubt, because you are some sort of simple literalist in the first place, their are more sophisticated approaches to God and religion then this. All you may be doing is moving from a simplistic form of faith to a simplistic form of Atheism’.

  28. Lynn,

    You’ve acknowledged it would be awful to make a hoot of your coming out, but, if you think your writing is of a sufficient standard that people will want to pay to read your story it could indeed be a launchpad for a new career. Perhaps a series of YouTube videos consisting of you coming out, discussions with former congregation, discussions with other clergy who are still entrapped, with thinkers and philosophers. This could provide an interesting perspective and insight and might be useful to other colleagues in the Clergy Project and could even be the basis of a professional TV programme – just in case there are any programme makers reading this blog or anyone thinking of making a pitch.

    J

  29. Tony, *no-one’s* morality is based on “Universal Law” – there is no such thing. Moral sanction does not derive from the universe, but from society in the widest sense and our consciences, as moulded by society (again) and our genetic background. It’s not up to a god to declare that The Golden Rule is the ultimate moral principle – this is something we work out for ourselves. Religions abstract that as “god” sometimes, but it’s not necessary for that to be the case. What I’m saying is that the old theist chestnut of “a law requires a lawgiver” does not hold.

    The challenge for the Atheistic Christian, however, is to reformat our new understanding of How Stuff Actually Works into a compatibility layer that still allows the good bits of Christianity to run. A bit like running a Windows program under Linux :-) More here: http://churchofjesuschristatheist.blogspot.com/2009/04/welcome.html
    Cheers,
    -Shane

    • @shane “Tony, *no-one’s* morality is based on “Universal Law” – there is no such thing. Moral sanction does not derive from the universe, but from society in the widest sense and our consciences, as moulded by society (again) and our genetic background. It’s not up to a god to declare that The Golden Rule is the ultimate moral principle – this is something we work out for ourselves. ”

      My point exactly, but there need not be a consensus. Nor indeed any evidence that society “gets it right” – what ever that means to an athiest.

      Your denial that a “law needs a lawgiver” is I think, a denial of the obvious. You have just replaced “God and Absolute or Universal law,” with “Society and subjective law.”

      It seems to be that gassing 6 million jews was absolutely, morally wrong. Yet there was a section of society that somehow took part in the act.

      You can only appeal to a “religiousy” principle of the “sanctity of human life” in order to prove to me that it was wrong. Why should anyone accept that principle. Don’t you believe that we are just a bunch of neuron’s? Why should anyone care if a bunch of neuron’s thinks it wants to survive as we shut them down, anymore than my laptop trying to finish a task before I shut it down.

      Athiesim offers no absolute laws, no absolute principles (from which to derive your subjective law.)

      Murderers, thieves and rapists reject your principles and face the consequences. You cannot say they are wrong. A golden rule for them might rightly be “Me and mine first whatever happens.”

      Dawkins’ lie is that religion is the “Root of All Evil.” He was being disingenious in this. The root of all evil, to me, is what he calls the “selfish gene.” It is the “nature of the beast.” It is, if you forgive the comparison, a bit like the idea of “original sin,”

      If all religion dies, which I doubt. You will still have murder and theft, rapist and tyrrants.

      It is only a quasi-religious belief in the “value” of human life, and quasi-religious respect for “the self” and consequences of breaking the golden rule that allows us to agree.

      You can’t get an “ought” from an “is.”

      I’m sorry, if I have started moving of topic. This is not a philosophy forum. Maybe, I should shut up.
      Perhaps as Lynn said, about others, I am loud as I am in a state of transition,

      I am not a troll.

      I actually applaud Lynn’s decision. I have sympathy for non believing clergy.

      Peace to all
      Tony

  30. I should have mentioned that if we do accept a principle, such as the Golden Rule, other principles necessarily flow from that, so ethics is not arbitrary or relative, but has a certain degree of absoluteness based on the principles. It is of course often easier to agree the principles than their precise outworkings. Very few of us would wish to defend the ethics of Leviticus, for example, but we can say that they were based on a set of ethical principles which we can now identify as contradictory and basically flawed with respect to modern principles that virtually everyone now accepts.

    • The Golden Rule should be the first to go.
      “He who has the Gold Rules” and those 10% of humanity are the farthest thing from God you may envision. Human kindness co-operation and compassion will go a long way to improve the human condition.

  31. christopher clack.

    Your hubris overflows, my friend. Lynn would have an extremely thorough knowledge of what being a christian is about. To call her interpretation immature and her faith simplistic is risible.

    The questions posed are exactly the problem for many that cause them to search for biblical answers. Finding only contradiction, puffery and downright disgraceful commentary therein does nothing to engender any feeling of confidence in the claimed inerrant word of god.

    Theologians over centuries have attempted to deduce the ‘true meaning’ of this book and, like every other believer (and non-believer), end up with their own interpretation. The difference is that believers have to use some serious mental gymnastics and circular reasoning to produce the version that equates to a loving and peaceful god. Non-believers dismiss it as a cultural curiosity at best.

    One is either a biblical literalist are you are practicing a form of self-deception. The bible is the inerrant word of god or it isn’t. To plead there is a deeper meaning, unwritten and known only to a select few or those who have studied hard, admits to the failure of the book to achieve any relevance in our time.

    And atheism is simplistic. It simply means no belief in gods. Anything else is personal interpretation and, therefore, moot.

    • ‘One is either a biblical literalist are you are practicing a form of self-deception’

      This is a point put forward by many atheists of the ‘strong’ variety. Its puts any one following a religion in an a position they cannot defend You set them up to be able to knock them down., As Lyn says the bible is full of contradictions , I agree and these are a problem if you take the bible literally. but there are plenty of Christian thinkers and writers throughout history who have not read the bible in this way.
      This blog as far as I can see represents the fundamentalist Christian who then ‘converts ‘to a form of fundamentalist atheism. , and is supported by the like minded.
      But this is just one set of closed thinking swapping uniform for another
      In my comments I was not doubting Lyn’s knowledge of the bible, but I was questioning Lyn’s interpretation of what its meant to be a Christian.

      “The bible is the inerrant word of god or it isn’t.” Do you really mean this?
      I know so many Christians who do not believe this. Many Christians have a in depth knowledge of the origins of biblical sources, its history and composition, that a statement like that would just not do any more. Again its just a way of setting something up into an unreasonable position so as to be able to knock it down.
      Can I ask what country you’re in? I’m from the uk

      • Christopher,

        You are right, I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian. But, I moved away from that into a denomination that was much more liberal and didn’t believe in the Scripture as being inerrant. That carried me along for a while, but I couldn’t escape the fact that the Bible itself claims to be inerrant. That fact alone places those who don’t believe in inerrancy in a false place. I also could mention the fact that the facts contained in the Bible are incorrect in many cases as proven by history and science. Lastly, I would point to the description of God listed in the Bible. This piece really pushed me over the edge. The god of the Bible approved of genocide, rape, polygamy, hatred of family, and punishing humans (which the Bible says are finite, frail, weak, only able to see ‘through a glass darkly. So if we are so weak, why punish so severely?) through torture for an eternity. Denying any of these claims based on the Bible not being inerrant denies the very claims that the Bible makes about itself. It takes a lot of rationalization to get around these points. Using the scientific method of Occam’s Razor (from among competing hypotheses, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false), the biblical position cannot be justified.

        I don’t claim to have all the answers. Most atheists, agnostics or humanists don’t either. I do claim to have an intelligent mind that won’t settle for easy answers. In one of my posts, I classify myself as basically a weak atheist. (Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.) In practice, I am a secular humanist. My desire is to better humankind and help those in need has not changed. I’m accomplishing some of that through this site. Many are looking for support as they work through their doubts. I can’t tell you how many I’ve ‘counseled’ via email. Some acknowledged agnosticism or atheism; some continued in a form of deism or a lose form of theism. Where a person stands doesn’t matter to me as long as they’ve come to their own conclusions and are able to discuss those positions with attacking the character of another human being. I’m also working with a local group to establish a ‘secular center’. This center would offer programs such as addictions support, counseling, a place for groups to meet, informational seminars, even exercise classes. As humanists, we have the ability to effect real change without all the ‘strings’ that religions attach.

        Biblical Christianity by its own definition cannot allow a person to question. Its premise as stated by Jesus is that he is ‘the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father [god] except through me’ John 14:6 Jesus isn’t making a suggestion…he is emphatic. You must follow him, only him or else you will be tormented in a fiery hell. (Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Matthew 25.41, 46) These statements don’t leave any wiggle room. It also makes any who follow Biblical Christianity atheists in their own right. They reject all other religions which makes them an atheist to a Muslim or Hindu.

        The truth of a matter can not be established based on the number of people who believe it. I’m from the south. There are numerous people African Americans are sub-human. They hold tightly to their racism. Does this make racism right? Absolutely not! So the argument of numbers cannot substantiate this claim.

        If you’re truly interested in understanding my position, read some of Bart Ehrman’s books. He does a much more thorough job of explaining these issues than I do.

        Finally, all my life I believed being a Christian meant following Christ and following the Bible. These two things are requirements given in the Bible. Without them, no one can call themselves a true believer. When the two foundational elements of a building are proven false, there is nothing to keep the house standing.

        Thanks again for your comments!

        ~AP

      • Interesting that your response goes on to prove my point!

        “As Lyn says the bible is full of contradictions , I agree and these are a problem if you take the bible literally. but there are plenty of Christian thinkers and writers throughout history who have not read the bible in this way.”


        In what ‘way’ have they read it, Christopher? Y’see, here’s the problem. That claim and this one:
        “The bible is the inerrant word of god or it isn’t.” Do you really mean this?
I know so many Christians who do not believe this.“…

        …is walking straight into the “No True Scotsman” defence; another one that we ‘strong’ (thank you, I have been working out!) atheists are wont to accuse you of.

        What special knowledge have they gleaned that I didn’t when I read this dreary tome? Or that Lynn had revealed to her?

        It’s like a scene from a Dan Brown book where the protagonist suddenly breaks a previously indecipherable code. Or the scene in “A Beautiful Mind” where ‘John Nash’ is staring at multiple news and other articles and is able to connect them through some sort of written pattern recognition.

        It’s absurd.

        I don’t have to set it up to knock it down. It’s a house of cards, ready to fall at the slightest nudge.

        And why is your interpretation of what it means to be a christian any more valid or cogent than anyone else’s. Back to that Scottish fella again!

        I have no doubt that there are “Many Christians (who) have a (sic) in depth knowledge of the origins of biblical sources, its history and composition…”

        This is not proof of the validity of their belief. In fact, there are many historians who have, or are realising, that there is no contemporary evidence or record of a singular Christ – and that evidence claimed is divined from some very evident circular reasoning and anecdotal, decades removed, evidence.

        As Lynn discovered, when applying critical thinking to these and other hoary questions, the answers she found flew in the face of her belief. For many, cognitive dissonance is an unhealthy default. I suspect Lynn knows this first-hand.

        Oh – and I’m an ex-pom. Now esconced on that ‘prison island’ and happy to be so!

  32. Hi Tony,
    No, I don’t think you’re trolling, nor do I think you’re adopting an unreasonable response. But I don’t think you’re doing justice to the point I made. We can decide on basic principles, and our ethics can flow from those principles. They do not need to be imposed from above or outside the system. Whether you choose to call them quasi-religious or not has absolutely no bearing on them being handed down from the gods, any more than you need gods to work out the value of Pi. Concepts like Right and Wrong only make sense in a human horizontal context. They are concepts that we attach to relationships, not something that you measure with a device or put in a bottle.
    Sure, we abstract these concepts and set them outside our individual dealings, but they are *our* creations, and there is no need for them to be given by the gods, nor is there any evidence whatsoever that they have been. It is perfectly explicable in an atheistic context to declare that the holocaust (carried out by good Catholics and Lutherans and Atheists too, I’m sure) was wrong, because we can trace the ethical reasoning back to principles that we can quite easily establish humanistically without any recourse to the gods.
    Cheers,
    -Shane

  33. I want to go back to supporting Lynn. Again, I think you are exhibiting a great deal of courage. I want to say that I almost missed the importance in your congregation of you having negotiated a most difficult path because you are a woman in a group that has not been accepting of women in a position of spiritual leadership. I can only imagine that that would add a whole other set of complications such as letting down other women who have seen you succeed, perhaps a perception that if you let people down as a pastor there will be repercussions on the next woman who wants to minister. I am in a tradition that values the leadership of both genders, so I am just guessing, but I am offering my support for you taking all the time you need without putting more of a burden on yourself. I don’t think anyone else can make your choices, but we can offer shoulders, ears, and hearts. <3

    • Lorinda, Your support and the support of the others on this site are very touching. I believe that this should be our response to anyone who is questioning regardless of where they’re coming from or where they may wind up. As fellow members of the human race, we owe it to each other to offer this gift to each other.
      ~AP

  34. Let me thank you all again for your wonderful comments! The encouragement and support shown is priceless! The conversations that ensued are very well stated, well thought out and filled with valuable insights. Several of you are questioning…GOOD! That’s the key to everything! We fail to truly live when we fail to think for ourselves. Healthy debate, shared knowledge and a continual attitude of learning will always lead us further along our journey on this pale blue dot.
    You guys really give me hope. I can’t wait till the day I can post my true name!!

    ~AP

    • Well, again, I and many others on here simply admire you and the meaning of what you’re going through deserves to be honored among your new community. It really is our pleasure to be able to encourage you.

      I was thinking, after reading Dennis’ recent response on the danger of coming out and having watched Dan Barker’s video on this site speaking to the same topic, about ex-clergy finding jobs in the real world. Well, what I see as a clearly transferable skill in you, Lynn, is “community leadership.” I think whatever your next professional adventure will be will almost certainly use that natural ability you have shown here in the past few days. And this time you get to have faith in yourself! How much more rewarding is that!? (Trust me…the answer is “Lots!”) I wish you all the best in it!

  35. Tony D, I am sorry if my statements about a cosmic consciousness and morality have upset you. That was not my intent and I am deeply sorry. I understand now why you returned to your faith, you never left it.  

    In an earlier post you made the claim that you were a man of science and I took you at your word. Even the pope in Rome has accepted that evolution has become widely accepted by science and that evolution did not negate the existence of God. 

    Even Christ ( if he ever existed) evolved, at least for his short time here on earth. He was not born, lived and died in the moment or all on the same day. He evolved at least for that period the story book scriptures said he was on earth, walking on water and raising the dead. If the pope can accept evolution, it should be easy for a man of science to accept.

    Once you accept that evolution exists you have mentally stripped away a good 50% of the bible story, on creation at lest, as it was understood 2000 years ago. Evolution is how the bible grew to what you love today. As a man of science you must realize that religion and evolution are like oil and water. 

    If you want to experience the universe for what it is, instead of what you have been told what it is, you have to step outside your door in the box and experience it. The universe is more vast than your imagination and you could not solve all it’s mysteries if you lived forever.  
    One might say it holds more mystery than God himself.

    Nature is science. Science by definition is the study of nature. Nature lends itself willingly to its discovery and allows you to question and prove all of its laws. Religion, on the other hand, not so much! 

    When I said that morality exists in nature I meant it. All sencient life forms, not just humanity, have morals. You probably refer to them as animal instinct. Instincts and morals are the same thing. Hence your banana morality. Sharing and cooperation is necessary in all species if they are to survive. The more intelligent animals share and cooperate the most. MORALITY!!

    The animal mind has the instinct of a species specific moral value. This instinct exists in all life forms and if these instincts are programmed into the animals DNA coding by natures evolution, you would have to say that there is a cosmic morality throughout the universe that constantly promotes survival in all species. Without instinct or morals no sencient species could survive.  

    Your God is exclusive when it comes to who reaps the rewards of his greatness. Lower animal species need not apply. Nature does not agree with gods law. You may wait a long time to experience the rewards or wrath of your god but, nature insists that you apply her laws in the here and now or she will wink your species into extinction and out of existence. 

    • @AL “Tony D, I am sorry if my statements about a cosmic consciousness and morality have upset you. That was not my intent and I am deeply sorry.”
      Please do not apologise. You have argued respectfully. I feel I am in the wrong, in hijacking a thread.
      “I understand now why you returned to your faith, you never left it.”
      That feels good to hear, because I want it to be true, but alas, I am not so sure. Yet elements of my old belief give me comfort. I don’t know that God exists. The OT God, I hope does not exist.
      “In an earlier post you made the claim that you were a man of science and I took you at your word. Even the pope in Rome has accepted that evolution has become widely accepted by science and that evolution did not negate the existence of God.”
      Sir Isaac Newton was a man of science, yet he believed. Science is a methodology based on free enquiry and philosophic naturalisms. It is the lie of militant atheists that belief in God is anti science. The big bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest, and resisted because it had creation overtones.
      “Even Christ ( if he ever existed)… “
      Christ is recorded outside the bible. He was a historical person.
      “… evolved, at least for his short time here on earth. He was not born, lived and died in the moment or all on the same day. He evolved at least for that period the story book scriptures said he was on earth, walking on water and raising the dead. If the pope can accept evolution, it should be easy for a man of science to accept.
      Once you accept that evolution exists you have mentally stripped away a good 50% of the bible story, on creation at lest, as it was understood 2000 years ago. Evolution is how the bible grew to what you love today. As a man of science you must realize that religion and evolution are like oil and water.”
      There are those that would argue with you about evolution, and the bible, not I. I accept evolution, but would say more. However, definitely not here.
      “If you want to experience the universe for what it is, instead of what you have been told what it is, you have to step outside your door in the box and experience it. The universe is more vast than your imagination and you could not solve all it’s mysteries if you lived forever. One might say it holds more mystery than God himself.”
      People can not tell me what to think.
      “Nature is science. Science by definition is the study of nature. Nature lends itself willingly to its discovery and allows you to question and prove all of its laws. Religion, on the other hand, not so much!”
      Nor does “science” belong to “the scientist.” I am a “man of science.” I understand the sense in which Gravity is negative energy. I understand the embarrassment of the fine tuned universe. I understand the claim (presumption) that the sum total energy MUST be zero. No proof. I am aghast that Hawkings claims that gravity before the big bang is enough for all this! No proof, no maths. Just faith.
      “When I said that morality exists in nature I meant it. All sencient life forms, not just humanity, have morals. You probably refer to them as animal instinct. Instincts and morals are the same thing. Hence your banana morality. Sharing and cooperation is necessary in all species if they are to survive. The more intelligent animals share and cooperate the most. MORALITY!!
      The animal mind has the instinct of a species specific moral value. This instinct exists in all life forms and if these instincts are programmed into the animals DNA coding by natures evolution, you would have to say that there is a cosmic morality throughout the universe that constantly promotes survival in all species. Without instinct or morals no sencient species could survive.
      Your God is exclusive when it comes to who reaps the rewards of his greatness. Lower animal species need not apply. Nature does not agree with gods law. You may wait a long time to experience the rewards or wrath of your god but, nature insists that you apply her laws in the here and now or she will wink your species into extinction and out of existence.”
      I have addressed much of this with shane. I have said little about “my God.”

      • Hi Toni,
        I truly admire your faith in Christianity. I wish I were blessed with that same faith in humanity. I’m working on that.

        If you knew that the bible was created by a cruel and ruthless dictator, the like of which has rarely been matched in history before or science; would this shake your faith in the lie? Research Constantine through non-religious history accounts, then if you have time, answer the question put forward. I will try to post a few links for you to peruse as soon as I have the time to locate them.

        I too have little comfort in cold facts. They offer little personal solace. But, we have to come to grips with the fact that it’s not all about the individual. It is the species that can obtain immortality. At least we are all part of human evolution, hopefully forever. Decisions made now will drastically effect humanity’s extinction or immortality.

  36. What a fantastic story. Hold on to your courage and your reason. When you are ready to make the leap, you will find more support than you probably expect, and in places that you probably won’t expect.
    Good luck.

  37. I too support you and am looking forward to your “coming out”. Keep in mind that quite a few posters got here through the RD site. If you really want to see how most people will react then post a link on several of the major christian sites.

  38. @Shane
    “Hi Tony,
    No, I don’t think you’re trolling, nor do I think you’re adopting an unreasonable response.”

    Thank you. However, I do think I am drifting off topic. For that I apologise. I was challenging the idea that Christians don’t think. Yet adding my support for Lynn.

    “But I don’t think you’re doing justice to the point I made. We can decide on basic principles, and our ethics can flow from those principles.”.

    I apologise. I am sure with you as an atheist Christian and me as a deist/questioning Christian/agnostic we can acknowledge many principles and debate the grey areas without referring to God or the gods. Cooperation requires it. If we cannot, cooperation will break down.

    “They do not need to be imposed from above or outside the system. Whether you choose to call them quasi-religious or not has absolutely no bearing on them being handed down from the gods, any more than you need gods to work out the value of Pi. Concepts like Right and Wrong only make sense in a human horizontal context. They are concepts that we attach to relationships, not something that you measure with a device or put in a bottle.”

    Agreed, if there is no God, and I am not here arguing that he/she exists. Actually, if s/he exists and does not reveal his/her will to us, we are, as mortals, little better off: We still have to approach the process in a similar manner. Few would disagree that “Thou shalt not kill.” Few, but not all!
    “Thou shalt not kill.” is a good principle, for atheist and Christian alike but again, few of us would deny the urge to add “…unless…”

    “Sure, we abstract these concepts and set them outside our individual dealings, but they are *our* creations, and there is no need for them to be given by the gods, nor is there any evidence whatsoever that they have been. It is perfectly explicable in an atheistic context to declare that the holocaust (carried out by good Catholics and Lutherans and Atheists too, I’m sure) was wrong, because we can trace the ethical reasoning back to principles that we can quite easily establish humanistically without any recourse to the gods.”

    Ahh! Here we differ. There were, no doubt, those professing to be Catholic and Lutherans… but if they call themselves “good Catholics” they are lying. They were so far away from the teachings of Christ. I believe this to be true of the crusaders, even though they were sanctioned by the pope. He was not following Christian values.

    The Athiests can only be described as “bad” in terms that they are fully entitled to reject.

    I believe it was Himmler, near the end of the war, when challenged about Germany’s breach of treaty obligations, said “What, after all, compels us to keep our promises?”

    If he doesn’t fear the consequences of upsetting other nations, then nothing.

    This is not an argument for God. It is one example of one thing that I refered to as the “cold comfort.” That I don’t like it, does not mean it is not so.

  39. Open letter to The Agnostic Pastor.

    I’m an Agnostic (not an Atheist):

    Let me get this right, you’re a pastor in a Christian Church? You lie about your unbelief because you don’t you want loose your job? You fool people into thinking you are something you are not, and you accept a paycheck for your deception?

    Anyone else find this just simply unacceptable? Criminal? this is the very definition of the word fraud. The people in that church are being victimized! No amount of stupidly on the part of a Christian entitles anyone carte blanche to victimize others. If I have the ability to steal disability payments from retarded people am I exempt from conviction because they were too stupid to care about? First these parishioners were victimized (as IMHO are all believers) by a Christian Pastor who believed, but was too blind to see the rubbish were preaching, but at lease she also believed! Now they are being victimized by an unbeliever willing to tell them the same rubbish but for not other reason than pathological narcissism!

    Can you tell me how this is any different than sleeping with your sisters husband? Actually this is even worse you get paid for doing this, you’re a thief. I mean this in the most literal way, you are guilty of the crime of fraud. You proclaim that on a website like you are some victim of religion? You are the victimizer, and you are an unbeliever doing it! Expecting US unbelievers to cheer you on in your deception! SLICK TRICK HO!

    Aside from the impact on you and your family (when the shit all hits the fan – and YES it’s going to) what about the impact on the innocent members of your church? You know the people that PAY YOUR BILLS? The people you call Friends and Family?

    Do you understand the only reason that the Government can’t throw fortunetellers in jail for fraud? It’s because they are willing to walk into court and swear that in their hearts and souls that they honestly believe they have the ability to tell peoples fortunes. I have no doubt that if you were arrested, you would have a sudden conversion BACK to being a Christian.

    Here you are, openly proclaiming that you are guilty of fraud, that you continue that crime, so that you can finish a book, about your “journey”. You do understand that any money you make from a crime will be taken from you? If the courts are just the people in your congregation deserve that money.

    I’m sorry but us unbelievers need to step back from welcoming people like this. I know that many unbelievers feel victimized by believers, that is no reason to cheer on those that victimize them! If you are an unbeliever that knows this “pastor”, out her, call your local DA, and push hard for an arrest and conviction. That way at least her congregation will understand that it was an unbeliever that helped free them from her fraud and deception, and that unbelievers are not STUPID. As an unbelievers ask yourself do we REALLY welcome this kind of person? I find the implications of her writing a book and going on speaking tours with Dawkins and the like, repugnant and damaging to the credibility of unbelievers. She should pray she never does a Q&A with me in the room.

    If you are a Pastor, and you have doubts, STOP BEING A PASTOR! Take a leave of absence and if you find that you can’t be honest about your faith and your congregation quit! Simply do it that way and a whole world of unbelievers is ready to welcome and support you! This women seems to think she will be speaking in tongues, and passing the collection plate one week, and the next, writing books and taking speaking fees from unbelievers. She is about to be hit in the face with the reality that many unbelievers have seen this con. Personally I’m putting a few tomatoes out in the sun to be ready for “The Agnostic Pastors” first speaking engagement.

    This “The Agnostic Pastor” is a despicable human being, she has clearly demonstrated that she is just as willing to defraud and steal from any unbeliever as her own congregation. If this women calls you a friend what makes you think she will not steal from you? She needs to face a Judge for her crimes.

    TJ Bradders

    • Aren’t we all TJ, aren’t we all despicable. Maybe when you are laying alone in death pondering your contribution to the improvement of whatever your belief may be; maybe, just maybe, you can find a little human sympathy and compassion for a fellow traveller in distress. We are all zealots with many opinions but, life demands common respect or the journey becomes pointless.

    • TJ –

      As we say in my neck of the woods, “Pull yer head in!”

      What an ill considered pile of hysterical drivel.

      So, according to your ‘reasoning’ (!) any person disillusioned with their job should be reported to the authorities for fraud?

      Mary, with a family to feed and a job she now hates has to pretend to be enthused by the products she sells to customers She doesn’t believe the BS the company delivered her about their commitment to work/life balance and promotion opportunities. But times are tough. Her friends know how she feels and have an idea of what she’s experiencing.

      However, according to your oh-so empathetic line of reason, one of them should ‘out’ her to the DA.

      I’ve worked several jobs where I thought the prospects were right up my alley, only to find, after a while that, despite my contribution and acknowledged success, I just wasn’t ‘feeling it’ any more. Me and millions of others!

      Should I front up to the local constabulary, weeping and wailing that I had sold a product to a customer even though I no longer had any loyalty to the company that paid me because all their promises had come to naught?

      Get a grip!

      There is a massive emotional component to Lynn’s and others situation. It’s about the force that drives her life and gives it meaning. The social stigma is massive and unforgiving (ironically) and making a snap decision could have immediate and long term repercussions that are less than pleasant. Only Lynn and others in her position can discern the speed and method of their departure.

      Heaping scorn and derision on her and her supporters with infantile analogies and scurrilous insults says more about your level of maturity than it does about any other ‘point’ you tried to make.

      You argue like a Fox News commentator. Long on rhetoric, short on fact or understanding.

      Now run along, you silly little person. the adults are talking!

    • TJ,
      I’ve refrained from commenting on this thread because I didn’t see any point in making any remarks. You have your opinions and no amount of debate on my part will change that. However, I do want to correct a few of your incorrect assumptions.

      First, my family. You’ve taken my immediate family into account but what about my Father? Sister? Brother? Did you take into account the affect on my husbands job? (Jerry DeWitt was fired from his secualr job after he came out. You incorrectly stated my son was an atheist…he is an agnostic in fact. Second, the money. If you’ve known pastors you know the money is just enough to cover the bills. I live in my own home, not a church paid parsonage. In the last few months, as the reality of how my beliefs have changed, I’ve stopped using my expense account. To equate this to ‘robbing’ my congregation is dead wrong. Third, my church. In my posts I’ve discussed how I struggle with this aspect. My attempt to leave as gracefully as possible and cause the least amount of damage is to finish my comittment. That ends in June and I will leave at that time. To leave earlier will stir up a lot of questions. “Why is she leaving?” will be asked and will demand an answer. To just finish my time and let the next pastor come in will protect my congregation more. (Of course the decision includes the need to provide for my family. If I left today we would lose a great deal. That’s not fair to my husband and son.)

      As for writing a book, I think you missed the point of the writing: to help others who are struggling as well. I’m very humanistic in my thoughts and would desire to use any resources from said book to help those struggling pastors. My comments point to the fact that I’m not concerned with HOW you believe, but that your beliefs are based on your own study. I have lost my faith, that is true. It wasn’t something that happened overnight, it was a long arduous process. Extricating myself from the situation as gently as possible is my goal.

      Oh, one other point. While in my personal life I no longer believe, I can assure you that my pastoral care for my congregation and my preaching is still based upon the doctrines of my particular denomination. I’m not leading anyone astray or damaging their faith in any way. While I may struggle with this at times, I still proclaim messages from the Bible. One last point, I’m actively applying and interviewing for jobs now.

      As I stated above, none of this will change your opinion. I can’t understand your hate for someone you haven’t met or your judgement on a path you haven’t walked. My situation (and many others like me) is very complex. I’m trying to work through it the best way I can.

      Finally, I can’t tell you how many people have contacted me through the website looking for support in their own journey! Most have never discussed their questions and find my story encouraging. They feel that I am able to relate to them and their situation. This is my #1 goal: to help others as they work through their own process.

      ~AP

      • Lynn, your help afforded by your blog may do more for humanity than in all your years of preaching to the choir.
        I hope your new employment affords you the same reward.

        When leaving in June you should allow your parishioners to decide your fate after revealing your true belief. You would not be the first to create a better church for the Flock with a more modern approach to God and Nature. If you filter out all of the magic, fear and ignorance, scripture still has volumes of human morality left to spread throughout mankind.

  40. Thank you for posting this. It could have been written by me with only a few minor changes, the only significant difference being that my period of doubt and discovery came in time for me not to end up as clergy. There were also a few cards that fell in a certain direction at the right time to lead me away from that.

    Habits are hard to break, though – in my relief at what I now consider a lucky escape, I nearly found myself thanking God just now for the way things worked out!

    I hope you find a way of resolving your situation, and whatever you do, I hope it works out well for you.

  41. Think of nature as your God. A God whose purpose and intelligence is far beyond our comprehension. A God creator not a God protector or savior. A God without favor or prejudice. A God who just keeps on creating & destroying life and is oblivious to our individual or species survival. A God who through an eternity has and will create life trough constant rebirth and death. Not a God of human creation yet one we all know well. A strange paradox where madness reigns and purpose is fleeting. A universe teeming with life all vying for survival.

    Such a universe must be totally void of morals, purpose or reward. But, for the species lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time; a species with the intelligence to unlock the secrets of God himself, this species may be able to survive in the universe through future eternity. If humanity is to survive we first have to save our planet, then explore the universe while spreading the seed of mankind to insure our survival from natures eventual destruction.

    This view of God  comforts me greatly when I realize that I could be a part off, or maybe a contributor to the immortality of such a species.

  42. Hi folks; the “Golden Rule” is essentially “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” – i.e. treat others with the same kindness and compassion as you would wish to be treated. Just in case anyone thought I was preaching a gospel of wealth-makes-right; couldn’t have that now! :-)

    It is interesting, though, how much of our ethical reasoning necessarily flows from that simple concept.

    • You omitted the Dark Side of the “Golden Rule”. Along with kindness and compassion come hatered, malice, deception, loathing, etc. which humans tend to do unto themselves through depression and confusion. Religions are expert at promoting these values while cloaking their motives of greed and power. The Golden Rule should be highlited by “forgiveness and understanding”, these are the altruistic values that will bring peace on earth.

  43. @Al Garnier

    “Hi Toni,
    I truly admire your faith in Christianity. I wish I were blessed with that same faith in humanity. I’m working on that.”

    Hello again Al.

    (Please, “Tony”, I think “Toni” is the feminine and I am a man!)

    I’m guessing few here would admire faith in Christianity. In fact most that posts here seem to view Christians with something ranging from gentle pity to unmasked derision. Though I understand that there are athiests that don’t disrespect believers.

    I have placed my “faith” as between highly questioning to agnostic. My faith is not strong. Elements of Christianity, I like. I used to think of an athiest Christian as an oxymoron, but may not be far away from that myself, but I am not athiest.

    “If you knew that the bible was created by a cruel and ruthless dictator, the like of which has rarely been matched in history before or science; would this shake your faith in the lie? Research Constantine through non-religious history accounts, then if you have time, answer the question put forward. I will try to post a few links for you to peruse as soon as I have the time to locate them.”

    I don’t think that the history of the Catholic church is one that I will begin to defend. The Bible (certainly the OT) I will not defend. That evil people hijack religions for power does not necessarily imply that the religion itself is evil.

    “I too have little comfort in cold facts. They offer little personal solace. But, we have to come to grips with the fact that it’s not all about the individual. It is the species that can obtain immortality. At least we are all part of human evolution, hopefully forever. Decisions made now will drastically effect humanity’s extinction or immortality.”

    I don’t fear extinction. Being dead can’t be worse than not being born yet. My “experience” of not being born was not unpleasent. If God exists (I will stop adding this, but please understand that is the context of my discussions) then I hope to meet him. I do not fear hell. i don’t believe it exists. That is the sulphur pit stuff anyway, but i think for Hitler meeting God will be hell(ish). He might burn with shame.

    Dualism is not anti science. Belief in God is not anti-science.

    All that is required for scientific conclusions is for the outcome to be repeatable and measureable.

    I would say that i am dualist. I think that is necessary for free will and reason.

    To be a materialist is to deny yourself responsibilty, choice, free will.

    See “Let’s all stop beating Basil’s car” (Dawkins)
    http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html

    If you are a materialist, in what sense can you say that you have arrived at that decision by reason?

    To illustrate what I mean;

    I remember an old computer advert for an “Olivetti.”

    In it they had three dos based competing computers running a program to evaluate which computer was the best.

    The olivetti reasoned/judged/computed that the olivetti was best. (No surprise!!)

    The other two judged,,….wait for it… the olivetti (shock!)

    These days we are not so naive. I saw through it then also!

    My point: What sense of trust can you put on the computer conclusion?
    If you are just a bunch of neurons firing, how can you say that you have arrived at ANY conclusion by free thinking and reason. How can you trust them at all.

    Your argument is self defeating!!

    You are not deciding anything. Your conclusion was set before you began.

    The materialists have hijacked science!!!! They will tell you have no free will. Thus denying you responsibility. They are trying to tell you we come from nothing!! It is NECESSARY that this is true in order to believe in the materialism.

    Sure we have seen sub atomic particles emerge momentarily from nothing and then disappear again.

    We have never seen anything the size of a pebble fall out of ‘nothing.’

    We can only see one universe. We can only measure one universe. We cannot measure through the big-bang. Our maths break down. We cannot explain the big bang. Hawkins wants to shrink it to below the quantum length then wave it away as one ALMIGHTY quantum fluctuation.

    When he talks of his “Gravity” god he is not doing repeatable measureable science. He is telling you the materialists creation myth!!! Something like;

    BOOK OF HAWKING

    1. Before the universe began there was nothing and the law of gravity.

    2. The law of gravity ruled, “Let there be energy(light!)”
    3. And lo, there was light in abundance…..

    If I can quote Lynn. C’mon people think for yourself!!!
    (Or do you really believe that you can’t?)

    Peace to all.
    Tony D

    BTW I see that there is another Tony d on this forum, in a different thread. It should be evident that we are not the same person.

    • Tony D, again I have unintentionally caused friction between us. Hopefully we can get beyond my obvious ignorance. I’m human after all. So are we all and therein lies the problem.

      The Human species is by far the most intelligent animal on this Earth but, an animal regardless of intelligence. The human psyche is still governed largely by the instinct or spiritual side of mental function rather than empirical evidence to the contrary. 

      Science has demonstrated the evolution of humanity far beyond the biblical accounts. We have evolved in stature and technology exponentially but, the human psyche has not noticeably evolved in at least 2000 years.

      Human instinct has served the species well throughout its evolution and an animal will always rely on something that governs success when faced with changing environments. Emotional reaction to a perceived threat has shown great success and will trump the reality of the situation 100% of the time. It’s the animal conditioning. Let’s hope we never lose these emotional instincts. They are the essence of our survival. We just need to harness them and channel their combined consciousness into benefiting mankind rather than destroying it.

      For the psyche to evolve with  physics and technology it needs to be exercised like any other animal function. We need to ease up on the break a little and allow our instincts to catch up with what we now consider to be reality.

      We are at a crossroads in our evolution where co-operation among all of humanity is necessary to promote our continued survival. We have the technology for the first time in our existence for massive social interaction with access to unlimited data 24/7 and the capability of space flight. The divisiveness of religion has made it ineffective in uniting humanity to a common goal. It’s time to begin a more decisive move toward a secular global government.

      I believe that humanity is at a time in our evolution to accept a more altruistic view of humanities immortality. The inward view of self preservation is reflected strongly in our governments, industries and institutions. This needs to be replaced or augmented with a more outwardly cooperative view toward the preservation of mankind. I don’t think this can be accomplish through ancient religions.

  44. “@Al Garnier
    Tony D, again I have unintentionally caused friction between us. Hopefully we can get beyond my obvious ignorance. I’m human after all. So are we all and therein lies the problem.”
    Hi again, Al.
    Sorry for not responding sooner. It was my wife’s 50th birthday. In any case I don’t think I can respond daily to both you and shane (as I have been) and follow up another point about something Lynn wrote, that I intend.
    No, you have not caused friction. I am not in the slightest offended. The problem, I think lies in the written word. It is not always clear what tone of voice is intended when reading another person’s writing. Hence, on the net we adopt emoticons. ;)
    It would be incredibly foolish of me to post in theagnosticpaster and then be personally offended when I am challenged. I welcome challenge. It is how I clarify my thoughts. Maybe that is why I am here.
    I stumbled here from RD.net. Where I have enjoyed many debates. However, they are not all so well mannered, and I have been textually abused on that site. Here is an interesting point, since I see religion being blamed as the “root of all evil.” I believe that it is the background in Christianity, that many of you here have, that makes the manners on this site, rather better than elsewhere(RD.net). If you don’t know what I am referring to then search Richard Dawkins, Outrage.
    I guess that you find my tone abrasive? If so, then I apologise. I consider this an open discussion, where I am responding to your points, at the crowd. Not every comment is directed to you personally.
    I think we are not fully engaging in each others points. I will try to do so in this post.
    My closing comment in the last post, about thinking, was directed at the materialists. It was a bit cheeky, but I think it is valid. Nobody has answered it.
    My reason for coming on here was to challenge the idea that God believers are unintelligent sheep and that science is anti-God.
    “The Human species is by far the most intelligent animal on this Earth but, an animal regardless of intelligence. The human psyche is still governed largely by the instinct or spiritual side of mental function rather than empirical evidence to the contrary.”
    Just to be clear, I think that by “spiritual side,” you mean superstition rather than any suggestion of “real” spirit?
    “Science has demonstrated the evolution of humanity far beyond the biblical accounts. We have evolved in stature and technology exponentially but, the human psyche has not noticeably evolved in at least 2000 years.
    Human instinct has served the species well throughout its evolution and an animal will always rely on something that governs success when faced with changing environments. Emotional reaction to a perceived threat has shown great success and will trump the reality of the situation 100% of the time. It’s the animal conditioning. Let’s hope we never lose these emotional instincts. They are the essence of our survival. We just need to harness them and channel their combined consciousness into benefiting mankind rather than destroying it.
    For the psyche to evolve with physics and technology it needs to be exercised like any other animal function. We need to ease up on the break a little and allow our instincts to catch up with what we now consider to be reality.
    We are at a crossroads in our evolution where co-operation among all of humanity is necessary to promote our continued survival. We have the technology for the first time in our existence for massive social interaction with access to unlimited data 24/7 and the capability of space flight. The divisiveness of religion has made it ineffective in uniting humanity to a common goal. It’s time to begin a more decisive move toward a secular global government.
    I believe that humanity is at a time in our evolution to accept a more altruistic view of humanities immortality. The inward view of self preservation is reflected strongly in our governments, industries and institutions. This needs to be replaced or augmented with a more outwardly cooperative view toward the preservation of mankind. I don’t think this can be accomplish through ancient religions.”
    Okay…
    I don’t think it matters, in a tolerant society, wither I am a dualist, or a Christian, or wither you are atheist, materialist. You say that religion is divisive. Let me be pragmatic, before I was being philosophical. To decide, wither or not, a religion is divisive you should judge the teachings.
    That people form groups is a social fact. I rather think that a group of neo Nazis is a bigger threat/evil in society than those that believe the “sermon on the mount.” I fully accept that a religion that declares “death to the infidels” present a real danger, but that is a world away from my mother “turning the other cheek.”
    Is a group divisive? Are you free to join? Is it whites only, men only, women only, old-boys network? Are you free to leave?
    I applaud your goal of “uniting humanity.” As a principle, it is something many would agree. It is not religion that is dividing us. It is power. Power struggles will be with you always. What do you see as a united society? Would you allow “divisive” groups? How would you divide the wealth and power? Who gets the power to decide?
    You talk of empirical science. Some things in science are empirical, beyond doubt. I have learned (in nearly 25yrs marriage) that two people can see the same thing and disagree entirely about the interpretation. ;)
    e.g.Einstien to Lemaître
    “Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable”.
    Your goal of immortality of mankind, or at least DNA based life is realistically impossible and possibly not desirable. The distance to the nearest star is possibly not realistically traversable. To nearest Goldilocks planet? We might populate Europa, a moon of Jupiter, when the Sun goes red giant, but when it goes supernova, it realistically is over.
    I think I have engaged the points in your post, but I am drifting off topic.
    I will check your links.
    **************
    My original motivation for posting stands;
    Religion is not antiscience.
    Believers can think freely. Perhaps it is materialists/determinists that can’t. ;P
    (will no one respond this point in my previous post?)

    • {My original motivation for posting stands;
      Religion is not antiscience.
      Believers can think freely. Perhaps it is materialists/determinists that can’t. ;P
      (will no one respond this point in my previous post?)}

      Hi Tony, Ok now that I know where your coming from, there are no holds barred, correct? (with respect off-course). I have decided to address your most pressing point first.

      Religion is not an antiscience. It is an “ancient” science who’s major theories, especially on creation, have been researched by science since they were created and have been found lacking when compared to present day knowledge of nature.

      Through indoctrination, believers in any religion are expected to follow those tenets without question and only in recent history have been awarded the freedom of self determination. Believers have been tried, tortured and murdered in defending “free thought” by these very religions.

      Humanity will have a struggle to remove this type of mental tyranny from its collective psyche. It amounts to global mental depression. Even today most believers can expect to be ostracized or expelled by the “faithful”. Case in point, “Lynn” and other pastors who question doctrine.

      Even you would agree that this is not good science. Science insists on “free thought” without influence of emotional ramifications. Religion has a recorded history of denying, even hiding known facts. (the flat earth theory, theory of evolution to mention a few)

      I will try to get back to your most recent post when time permits. I, as you, love a good intelligent discussion but, still have to pigeon hole such pleasures within daily survival.

      • Al and Tony – keep going. It’s very interesting!!

        Tony D: If I may interject on one point (since you asked, nay, pleaded…), and I do so noting that I am plucking and commenting on this one quote with no other context.

        “My original motivation for posting stands;
        Religion is not antiscience.
        Believers can think freely. Perhaps it is materialists/determinists that can’t. ;P
        (will no one respond this point in my previous post?)”

        Religion, per se, is not anti-science. ‘Religion’ is just a soubriquet used to describe this cultural phenomenon.

        So we must look at the texts, perhaps, as the next step. Here is where the waters muddy somewhat. Were you to pick apart the Bible, Koran, Torah, Granth Sahib etc, you would not find any overt call to combat ‘science’ (not a word that existed as we use it in those days). What you WILL find is plenty of request and requirement that you adhere to a deity’s word and that word alone. So what are adherents to this word to do, then, when some upstart declares that the holy book – I will use ‘bible’ from now on, for brevity – is in error?

        What should these people do when informed that the very basis of life on this planet is fundamentally at odds with the account(s) that form the foundation of their belief?

        The either acquiesce to the new intelligence and its ‘veracity’ or they fundamentalise and fight back. They become ‘anti-science’ to begin with. Not all. History is littered with pre and post Darwin scientists who also profess religious ‘faith’. Because so much of what we rely on nowadays is as a result of ‘science’, it is difficult to negate it.

        But now the ‘fundies’ are openly anti-science. They don’t deny it. They pervert it. Young earth creationism and ‘Intelligent’ Design are two ends of the same shit-covered stick. These people snidely take on the veneer of applying scientific method to their claims then, knowingly, pressurise and lobby to negate science teaching to our children.

        Look at Behe, Dembski et al. Their claims about irreducible complexity in bacterial flagellum were roundly and comprehensively, scientifically disproved. When this happens, a scientist scraps the work and starts anew, taking on board the criticisms and corrections to perfect or waste-bin their hypotheses. These charlatans did neither. They continue, with the assistance of many religious organisations and individuals, to attempt the perversion of childhood education. Not with science, but with religion. There is no ‘science’ left for them.

        This is ‘anti-science’ – against science. Science is specific about its requirements. Evidence. Proof. Repeatability. Robustness. Inquisitiveness.

        Which brings me to your next, albeit tongue-in-cheek, point.

        “Believers can think freely, perhaps it is materialists/determinists who can’t. ;P”

        Sorry sport – believers more often than not don’t think freely. They’ve stopped ‘thinking’ and accepted doctrine as a guiding force. Worse, many submerge themselves in dogma (you should meet my in-laws!!). They CAN think freely. They choose not to. They have discovered the answer and believe they need look no more. I see this all around me.

        They purposely decry or attempt to restrict the lives and education of others, and, when challenged, whine and moan about others not being open-minded! Ohhh, the hubris!!

        Sadly, there ARE many materialists and determinists who have stopped thinking. They have accepted a view and refuse to consider alternatives (AGW denial would be a case in point). There are many atheists who wish to expunge religion as an evil, redundant meme. As a lover of history, I fear this methodology as it would, I believe inevitably, Stalinise the cultural history of humanity.

        My wish is that science, rationalism and the absolute wonder and joy of discovering the truths about ourselves and the universe in which we live will see the eroding of religion as a cultural and psychological crutch. To do this, we must keep thinking; critically, rationally, scientifically. We must enrich and nourish through art, literature and music. We must discuss, openly and robustly and maintain healthy scepticism so that we do not stagnate and stifle thought and expression.

        I hope what I’ve written has struck a chord.

        Speaking of which, I’m off for some much needed guitar practice.

    • {Tony D….
      Hi again, Al.
      Sorry for not responding sooner. It was my wife’s 50th birthday. In any case I don’t think I can respond daily to both you and shane (as I have been) and follow up another point about something Lynn wrote, that I intend.
      No, you have not caused friction. I am not in the slightest offended. The problem, I think lies in the written word. It is not always clear what tone of voice is intended when reading another person’s writing. Hence, on the net we adopt emoticons. 
      It would be incredibly foolish of me to post in theagnosticpaster and then be personally offended when I am challenged. I welcome challenge. It is how I clarify my thoughts. Maybe that is why I am here.
      I stumbled here from RD.net. Where I have enjoyed many debates. However, they are not all so well mannered, and I have been textually abused on that site. Here is an interesting point, since I see religion being blamed as the “root of all evil.” I believe that it is the background in Christianity, that many of you here have, that makes the manners on this site, rather better than elsewhere(RD.net). If you don’t know what I am referring to then search Richard Dawkins, Outrage.
      I guess that you find my tone abrasive? If so, then I apologise. I consider this an open discussion, where I am responding to your points, at the crowd. Not every comment is directed to you personally.
      I think we are not fully engaging in each others points. I will try to do so in this post.
      My closing comment in the last post, about thinking, was directed at the materialists. It was a bit cheeky, but I think it is valid. Nobody has answered it.
      My reason for coming on here was to challenge the idea that God believers are unintelligent sheep and that science is anti-God.}

      Please offer your good wife my congratulations on her 50th. I hope you are not divulging any minor secrets. (LOL) I am relieved that we can now make points without worrying about insulting each other. We are civilized and thick skinned enough to get beyond personal insults. 

      However, you have confirmed my point about emotional inferences effecting the reality of a given situation. Emotions are but animal instincts, as are morals. They serve us well in understanding our personal survival but unfortunately stymie legitimate observations that threaten our basic tenets regardless of the facts. Religion relies heavily on emotional responses. Political parties, (Republican, Conservative, Tory) also rely heavily on emotional religious rhetoric to rouse the religious righteous right in supporting insane political positions in support of war.  (George Bush “the Evil Empire” or ”You are with us or against us”) This is the evil rhetoric of which I speak. It does not allow for common ground and consensus. We are all too aware of religious tyranny in the world today. The Middle East is exemplary of the negative aspects of religious rule.

      Good or bad, religion has had very little influence in forging my morality. Common decency and self-respect, I believe, come from species specific DNA encoding. Nature demands that of any intelligent species if we are to work together toward our continued survival. Disingenuous arguments supporting bad decisions on an emotional bases are a sickness in human discourse. 

      {Just to be clear, I think that by “spiritual side,” you mean superstition rather than any suggestion of “real” spirit?}

      Spirituality is but Instinct. It is instrumental in guiding our actions toward our survival in environments where knowledge is lacking. These environments produce spirituality for survival purposes if not fully understood. Superstitions are misconstrued ideas stemming from fear concerning the reality of the environment encountered. “Real” spirits (ghosts, goblins, etc.) would find difficulty existing outside the animal mind except maybe in a cosmic or, group consciousness and psyche. (Non-physical but existing probably in “virtual” DNA encoding through nature’s evolution)

      {Okay…
      I don’t think it matters, in a tolerant society, wither I am a dualist, or a Christian, or wither you are atheist, materialist. You say that religion is divisive. Let me be pragmatic, before I was being philosophical. To decide, wither or not, a religion is divisive you should judge the teachings.
      That people form groups is a social fact. I rather think that a group of neo Nazis is a bigger threat/evil in society than those that believe the “sermon on the mount.” I fully accept that a religion that declares “death to the infidels” present a real danger, but that is a world away from my mother “turning the other cheek.”
      Is a group divisive? Are you free to join? Is it whites only, men only, women only, old-boys network? Are you free to leave?
      I applaud your goal of “uniting humanity.” As a principle, it is something many would agree. It is not religion that is dividing us. It is power. Power struggles will be with you always. What do you see as a united society? Would you allow “divisive” groups? How would you divide the wealth and power? Who gets the power to decide?
      You talk of empirical science. Some things in science are empirical, beyond doubt. I have learned (in nearly 25yrs marriage) that two people can see the same thing and disagree entirely about the interpretation. 
      e.g.Einstien to Lemaître
      “Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable”.
      Your goal of immortality of mankind, or at least DNA based life is realistically impossible and possibly not desirable. The distance to the nearest star is possibly not realistically traversable. To nearest Goldilocks planet? We might populate Europa, a moon of Jupiter, when the Sun goes red giant, but when it goes supernova, it realistically is over.
      I think I have engaged the points in your post, but I am drifting off topic.
      I will check your links.
      ************}

      I said before, good and evil are but words to describe the pros and cons of a species/individual day to day struggle for survival. Fish is a staple of the human diet and assuredly not considered an evil by humanity. But, considered from the fish point of view, it is the most grievous of sins inflicted on their species. Einstein and Lemaitre may interpret things differently but, that does not effect the essence of the observed thing. There is only one truth, at least in the here and now, and that’s pretty much what we are all searching for. “A rose by any other name……”

      Hitler will not be remembered as a humanitarian. His Nazi regime was forged from fear and famine but, compared to Constantine the damage caused by Hitler to the human psyche has been far less destructive or as far reaching as the lies created by Constantine’s Christianity. Through careful observation of human instinct for survival and superstitions created from ignorance, Constantine created a belief system based on fear that would enslave the human psyche even into death. Constantine was already the Emperor of the known world with absolute physical power yet, created his religion to enslave not only the body but the minds a “souls” of humanity to this day. 

      His influence is felt today through religious belief separating human survival from that of Religious power. If we all have a chance at immortality in heaven, the only purpose in life is to please the gods and not suffer everlasting torture. Through fear of reprisal, even in death, religion is designed to subvert individual thought toward serving the ruling power without question. There is little fear of rebellion if everyone believes the lie to the point of ignoring reality.

      Divisiveness  in a country is controlled by laws and constitution. There are many religions in America, England, Germany, etc. but, their divisiveness is controlled by the governing power. This power is better served by secular rule rather than the moral issues of any one religion or group. (Sweden, Norway) It is not impossible to apply this power singularly on a global basis supporting human right to life, liberty and pursuit of self determination 

      Power should go to the people, as a true democracy dictates. True democracy does not exist in the world today. We elect our representatives who use their power mostly for their own greedy motives and not for the survival of the individual or species. Like religions, our governments are similarly divisive. Technology will eventually allow every citizen of the world a direct vote on pending legislation. (this may be possible even with existing technology) This was the true democracy of ancient Greece.

      Our technology has evolved to the level of the gods. Constantine would find it difficult to create Christianity today. He would probably view us as gods. I find your lack of “faith” in human ingenuity at solving natures secrets very disheartening. Look how far our technology has come since Christianity was invented. With the advent of artificial intelligence on our doorstep, just how much further do you think humanity will have evolved in technology within the next 2000 years? If we start now and focus a world government on technology supporting human life on earth and “off world” rather than weapons of “asinine destruction”,  you will see an off world colony before you meet your god. In 3 to 4 billion years when our sun becomes a red giant, and if humanity has not been wiped out by nature’s evolution, there may be descendants of humanity living in other Galaxies let alone our solar system.

      Life is a gamble at best, lets “hope” our species has a chance. There are no absolutes as religion would have you believe. The desirability of this continued experiment is to carry on the altruistic intent of nature. Survival of the species at all costs for the purpose of recording humanity’s evolution within nature for all to see. I strongly suspect that the universe may be teeming with life. Some less evolved and hopefully some far more advanced than humanity. This pales in comparison to the religious promise of individual immortality but, it has a lot more support as offered by empirical evidence.

      Anything is possible in nature’s future. Whether or not it exists in the universe today does not mean it will not exist in the future. We can have more hope in the future if we all work toward the common goal of human immortality irregardless of our success. The combined human psyche must be shaped to support the specie’s survival more than the whimsical promise of an immortal soul. I personally believe that this is the only immortality afforded to us in nature and the heavens. I hope our species will survive and I would be more willing to give my thinking life for this noble cause than for any remote hope of eternity in whatever heaven religion may promise.

  45. AP – calling me a ‘musician’ is drawing a long bow!! Hence the need to practice!!!!!

    I do have a question – you said you had moderated out some comments due to their abusive nature. I kind of understand this, but would offer that sometimes it’s good to let others have a look and reply, not necessarily in kind, but with wit, wisdom and words. Let the cats play with their fluffy toys!!

    Of course, it’s your blog/your rules, so respect in that regard.

  46. @AL

    Hi AL
    :@
    Why do I do this to myself?

    {Hi Tony, Ok now that I know where your coming from, there are no holds barred, correct? (with respect off-course).}

    Errr… can we have the old AL back please. I liked him! ;)
    Well I asked for it. I can’t dip my toe in. Thanks, Lynn, for moderating.

    AL:{ I have decided to address your most pressing point first.
    Religion is not an antiscience. It is an “ancient” science who’s major theories, especially on creation, have been researched by science since they were created and have been found lacking when compared to present day knowledge of nature.}

    You insist on pulling me into defence of the catholic faith, in spite of my earlier statement “I don’t think that the history of the Catholic church is one that I will begin to defend. The Bible (certainly the OT) I will not defend. That evil people hijack religions for power does not necessarily imply that the religion itself is evil.”

    I am talking about religion in a broader sense. That belief that there is something more;

    {www.dictionary.com
    a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.}

    AL{Through indoctrination, believers in any religion are expected to follow those tenets without question…}

    …or not…
    I still practice, yet see problems with doctrine. I also left, and returned, freely.

    AL { …and only in recent history have been awarded the freedom of self determination.}

    …which is when we live!!!

    AL{Believers have been tried, tortured and murdered in defending “free thought” by these very religions.}

    Accepted, there have been a great many foul deeds done in the “name of God.” I will not defend them, but you judge history by 21st century values. Human history is littered with brutality. Christians were thrown to lions. People were hung, drawn and disembowelled (ugggh!) and their heads posted on a stick at the edge of town, for treason. You ignore the fact that these behaviours fly in the face of the teachings of Christ, and were more about power and politics than religion.

    AL{Humanity will have a struggle to remove this type of mental tyranny from its collective psyche. It amounts to global mental depression. Even today most believers can expect to be ostracized or expelled by the “faithful”. Case in point, “Lynn” and other pastors who question doctrine.}

    Has not one of Lynn’s most polemic critics been one who proclaims himself to be agnostic(TJ Bradders) .

    I must of course acknowledge that Lynn has sanitised this thread by blocking abuse. I hope I am not being disrespectful to Lynn in suggesting that once she comes “out,” her position as pastor will be untenable and referring to that as expulsion is a little unfair. Some may ostracize her, others may be more understanding. That is people. As a pastor, Lynn herself is responsible for the teachings in her church. I think she said somewhere that her message has adopted are more humanist slant. I wonder if any of the “faithful” notice? Does she teach her flock to ostracise non-believers? That I could not condone.

    AL [Even you would agree that this is not good science. Science insists on “free thought” without influence of emotional ramifications.]

    Religion is not science. Science is not religion, but scientist can become religious about theories.
    We are talking about free enquiry here. Scientists can be conservative and restrictive. Try to be a scientist that believes in something a little radical and watch the ostracizing and expulsion of the “true scientists.”
    Einstein’s theory was resisted because it challenged Newton.

    AL[Religion has a recorded history of denying, even hiding known facts. (the flat earth theory, theory of evolution to mention a few)]

    The catholic church accepts evolution, you said so yourself. You think scientists don’t hide known facts?

    quote; “The common knowledge of a profession often goes unrecorded in technical literature for two reasons: one need not preach commonplaces to the initiated; and one should not attempt to inform the uninitiated in publications they do not read. The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists …” p 749-750 The Structure of Evolutionary Theory” by Steven Jay Gould
    What about Piltdown man? Not just hiding known facts, but complete fabrication. Complete lie.

    AL[I will try to get back to your most recent post when time permits. I, as you, love a good intelligent discussion but, still have to pigeon hole such pleasures within daily survival.
    ……]

    Cheers AL, let’s keep this good natured. I respect that you, like me, have limited time, and don’t expect, or promise daily correspondance.

    [Please offer your good wife my congratulations on her 50th. I hope you are not divulging any minor secrets. (LOL) I am relieved that we can now make points without worrying about insulting each other. We are civilized and thick skinned enough to get beyond personal insults.]

    Thank you. She will likely role her eyes that I have ended up in another debate. To disagree strongly, with respect, is fine. I am not offended. To throw general abuse and insults is bad form.

    AL[However, you have confirmed my point about emotional inferences effecting the reality of a given situation. Emotions are but animal instincts, as are morals. They serve us well in understanding our personal survival but unfortunately stymie legitimate observations that threaten our basic tenets regardless of the facts. Religion relies heavily on emotional responses. Political parties, (Republican, Conservative, Tory) also rely heavily on emotional religious rhetoric to rouse the religious righteous right in supporting insane political positions in support of war. (George Bush “the Evil Empire” or ”You are with us or against us”) This is the evil rhetoric of which I speak.]

    Agreed, and again this is about power.

    AL[ It does not allow for common ground and consensus. We are all too aware of religious tyranny in the world today. The Middle East is exemplary of the negative aspects of religious rule.]

    There are religious teachings which are deplorable, but make no mistake again much of middle east trouble is about power. Gaddafi didn’t argue about theology with the people of Libya.

    AL[Good or bad, religion has had very little influence in forging my morality. Common decency and self-respect, I believe, come from species specific DNA encoding.]

    I would say, the “old Al” was extremely understanding. Reminded me of my older brother, a very Catholic man. The “gloves off Al” I like also. I don’t disagree that many species, and have said elsewhere (to Shane) that cooperation is an efficient way to play the survival game. Thieving is a high risk – high return strategy.

    CS Lewis argued that the moral code was a sign of God in everyone, but looking at monkeys, meercats etc. We can see similar behaviours. Of course God may have written his moral code in the DNA, but I am not prepared to argue for that. Though your idea of Cosmic consciousness which I rejected (without God) may reflect the arguments of CS Lewis. Curious?

    AL[ Nature demands that of any intelligent species if we are to work together toward our continued survival. Disingenuous arguments supporting bad decisions on an emotional bases are a sickness in human discourse.
    {Just to be clear, I think that by “spiritual side,” you mean superstition rather than any suggestion of “real” spirit?}
    Spirituality is but Instinct. It is instrumental in guiding our actions toward our survival in environments where knowledge is lacking. These environments produce spirituality for survival purposes if not fully understood. Superstitions are misconstrued ideas stemming from fear concerning the reality of the environment encountered. “Real” spirits (ghosts, goblins, etc.) would find difficulty existing outside the animal mind except maybe in a cosmic or, group consciousness and psyche. (Non-physical but existing probably in “virtual” DNA encoding through nature’s evolution)]

    That is a world view. It is a valid and internally consistent interpretation. However, and this kind of reflects the point I made about the Olivetti, it is not the only interpretation.
    I have never personally had a significant spiritual experience. There are those that swear they have. I accept that some may be lying. Some may be misinterpreting the environment.
    Dawkins will bluntly wave his hand and say, publicly to the persons face, “You are hallucinating.”
    Knowing the personal bias and emotional investments and the tendency to look for causal links, the possibility of self deception -can you argue that reason and science is pure?

    I am a man of science, but not everyone interprets the same facts. We have been wrong before, and may be very wrong now.

    [{Okay…snip
    ************}
    I said before, good and evil are but words to describe the pros and cons of a species/individual day to day struggle for survival. Fish is a staple of the human diet and assuredly not considered an evil by humanity. But, considered from the fish point of view, it is the most grievous of sins inflicted on their species. ]

    It is not evil when a tiger eats a man. Gassing six million Jews, hasn’t threatened the survival of the species one iota – is that not evil? They argued that some races were subhuman.

    AL[Einstein and Lemaitre may interpret things differently but, that does not effect the essence of the observed thing. There is only one truth, at least in the here and now, and that’s pretty much what we are all searching for. “A rose by any other name……”]

    For believers, God features as part of that world view in the order, morality and beauty.

    Dawkins rejects God with a weak philosophical question: Who designed the designer? he was being disingenuous. The answer for a person of faith is “I don’t know, but it looks incredibly designed and unbelieveably fine tuned.” Why does a believer in design have to explain the designer to accept design. Dawkins doesn’t feel the need to explain the first cell in order to posit evolution. The cell is an incredibly complex design. Were is the simple replicator? If it is simple why is it not everywhere(like the cell)? Why is it not endlessly emerging in the environment. If it is simple can’t we make it up.

    Why is gravity enough? Why was there a law of gravity when there was nothing? What evidence do you have for a multiverse? If you believe in pure science why are you trying to explain the unmeasureable? It is not science!

    [Hitler will not be remembered as a humanitarian. His Nazi regime was forged from fear and famine but, compared to Constantine the damage caused by Hitler to the human psyche has been far less destructive or as far reaching as the lies created by Constantine’s Christianity.
    Through careful observation of human instinct for survival and superstitions created from ignorance, Constantine created a belief system based on fear that would enslave the human psyche even into death. Constantine was already the Emperor of the known world with absolute physical power yet, created his religion to enslave not only the body but the minds a “souls” of humanity to this day. ]

    Yes religion has been hijacked, but you aren’t trying to tell me that Lynn’s Sunday homily is more evil to the Psyche than Neo nazi propaganda? C’mon? Really?

    [His influence is felt today through religious belief separating human survival from that of Religious power. If we all have a chance at immortality in heaven, the only purpose in life is to please the gods and not suffer everlasting torture. Through fear of reprisal, even in death, religion is designed to subvert individual thought toward serving the ruling power without question. There is little fear of rebellion if everyone believes the lie t’o the point of ignoring reality.]

    Assuming that there is no truth in the teachings. Which you are free to reject or accept. If others choose to believe?

    [Divisiveness in a country is controlled by laws and constitution. There are many religions in America, England, Germany, etc. but, their divisiveness is controlled by the governing power. This power is better served by secular rule rather than the moral issues of any one religion or group. (Sweden, Norway) It is not impossible to apply this power singularly on a global basis supporting human right to life, liberty and pursuit of self determination ]
    Yet you will have rich and poor, empowered and powerless.
    [Power should go to the people, as a true democracy dictates. True democracy does not exist in the world today. We elect our representatives who use their power mostly for their own greedy motives and not for the survival of the individual or species. Like religions, our governments are similarly divisive. Technology will eventually allow every citizen of the world a direct vote on pending legislation. (this may be possible even with existing technology) This was the true democracy of ancient Greece.]

    This is very idealistic, but will still not bring equality, you said, “True democracy does not exist.” Your missing my point: Without religion you will still have power struggles, war, disease. Science cannot save us. If people don’t die, then the population grows, then they starve and die, or the population grows…

    AL[Our technology has evolved to the level of the gods. Constantine would find it difficult to create Christianity today. He would probably view us as gods. I find your lack of “faith” in human ingenuity at solving natures secrets very disheartening…]

    Sorry.

    AL[… Look how far our technology has come since Christianity was invented. With the advent of artificial intelligence on our doorstep, just how much further do you think humanity will have evolved in technology within the next 2000 years? If we start now and focus a world government on technology supporting human life on earth and “off world” rather than weapons of “asinine destruction”, you will see an off world colony before you meet your god.]

    This is an unprovable assertion based on your world view.

    AL[ In 3 to 4 billion years when our sun becomes a red giant, and if humanity has not been wiped out by nature’s evolution, there may be descendants of humanity living in other Galaxies let alone our solar system.]

    I don’t think you grasp the distance you discuss.

    AL[Life is a gamble at best, lets “hope” our species has a chance. There are no absolutes as religion would have you believe. The desirability of this continued experiment is to carry on the altruistic intent of nature. Survival of the species at all costs for the purpose of recording humanity’s evolution within nature for all to see. I strongly suspect that the universe may be teeming with life. Some less evolved and hopefully some far more advanced than humanity. This pales in comparison to the religious promise of individual immortality but, it has a lot more support as offered by empirical evidence.
    Anything is possible in nature’s future. Whether or not it exists in the universe today does not mean it will not exist in the future. We can have more hope in the future if we all work toward the common goal of human immortality irregardless of our success. The combined human psyche must be shaped to support the specie’s survival more than the whimsical promise of an immortal soul. I personally believe that this is the only immortality afforded to us in nature and the heavens. I hope our species will survive and I would be more willing to give my thinking life for this noble cause than for any remote hope of eternity in whatever heaven religion may promise.]

    I would love you to be right, about the species anyway. You are free to devote your time how you like.

    First of, I am genuinely sorry if you feel “sucked” into a time consuming debate. This takes time, some of my questions were rhetorical.. my point was stop blaming religion for the evils/failings of men.

    Don’t feel the urge to respond quickly. I reget that jumped so fast.

    Between us we have written a small essay!
    War will always be with us.
    You’ve warned about the evil of religion.
    You’ve ignored the benefits.
    Charity, were I am, Scotland. The evil church you decry has spawned, promotes or supports;
    SCIAF, Missio, Justice and Peace, Mary’s meals, SVDP, Save the Children
    And more I am sure.
    You also ignore the community that a church engenders.

    The possible dangerous message of evolution;
    Might is right..
    Only the strong survive, and it is best that they do..
    Protection/care for the weak is to the detriment of the species..
    And as we saw with the Nazis, some races of men may be sub spiecies.
    Can you not see a case for the above?

    Peace
    Tony D

    • Tony said: I would love you to be right, about the species anyway. You are free to devote your time how you like. First of, I am genuinely sorry if you feel “sucked” into a time consuming debate. This takes time, some of my questions were rhetorical.. my point was stop blaming religion for the evils/failings of men.

      Al said: Accountability should fall on those imposing their morals and rules on others. Ironically, this responsibility seems to escape those in religious, corporate and government leadership. I am not blaming religion for the evils/failings of men. Religion “IS” one of the worst evils/failings of mankind. Religion has weaved it’s tentacles into all aspects of human interaction, including sex, and allows the arrogance of those  in power to usurp absolute religious decree. A decree based on deceit that has captured and enslaved the human psyche toward a false goal. A goal of greed and control over all humanity for the personal profit of the few in power. I never suggested that religious authors were inherently stupid. Contrarily, they mold the human psyche to their own selfish ends. Power to the People should reflect that purpose, not the purpose of greed and profit for the few.

      Tony said: Don’t feel the urge to 5respond quickly. I reget that jumped so fast. Between us we have written a small essay! War will always be with us. You’ve warned about the evil of religion. You’ve ignored the benefits. Charity, were I am, Scotland. The evil church you decry has spawned, promotes wor supports; SCIAF, Missio, Justice and Peace, Mary’s meals, SVDP, Save the Children And more I am sure. You also ignore the community that a church engenders. The possible dangerous message of evolutiond; Might is right. Only the strong survive, and it is best that they do.. Protection/care for the weak is to the detriment of the species.. And as we saw with the Nazis, some races of men may be sub spiecies. Can you not see a case for the above? Peace Tony D} 

      Al said: My spouse studied nursing at the Royal Infirmary in Glasgow and finished her midwifery studies at Queen Mother’s. But, I digress.
      Human disputes may always be with us but, the abomination of war should be eradicated from the psyche of humanity. Most (if not all) wars in human history have been needlessly fought for God and Country. If you arbitrarily remove both the absolutes of God and the borders of Country, it stands to reason that the removal of war would naturally follow. 

      Violent civil uprisings are not designed as war. They are the manifestation of human exasperation against tyrannous government controls usually supported by some erroneous religious decree supporting the benefit of the few. The legality of violence in humanity should be relegated only to “credible” arguments of self defense or extreme mental torture, which you probably could argue if something should befall me at this point in our discussion. ;)

      Charity is not a religious tenet. Otherwise the church in Rome, or elsewhere, would not be as opulent. Charity extends directly from deep rooted instincts for survival of the species. Religion has once more usurped the credits of the  human instincts toward helping each other as religious doctrine. Charity would be better served in the public realm of government mandate than left to sate church coffers. (Sweden, Norway) Church communities are all members of a larger community that would survive and flourish (probably more) regardless of religious doctrine.

      Hitler was born into a  Catholic family and was indoctrinated with the lie as all good Catholics. He became a lapsed Catholic after childhood but publicly promoted a positive Christianity, purged of Judaism and instilled with Nazi philosophy. His confused sense of warped Christian values may have driven him to his madness against the Jews and thirst for power.

      I do see a case for your fear of basic animal instincts controlling human moral conduct. However, the complexity of the moral psyche of any species is directly proportional to the evolved intelligence, physical environment and knowledge base of the particular species. We are definitely higher life forms with superior intellect and our strong moral values are not tethered to any religious absolutes. The Human moral psyche would have evolved with our technology and empirical knowledge if it had not been hijacked by deceitful religious doctrine.

      I know my tenacity must be a burden on your time. It is difficult for you to deflect all blame from religion when the lie is finally revealed to the light of truth. Just remember; “The truth is out there” and not in ancient scripture.

  47. @scifi 1

    [{“scifi1
    Al and Tony – keep going. It’s very interesting!!
    Tony D: If I may interject on one point (since you asked, nay, pleaded…), and I do so noting that I am plucking and commenting on this one quote with no other context.
    “My original motivation for posting stands;
    Religion is not antiscience.
    Believers can think freely. Perhaps it is materialists/determinists that can’t. ;P
    (will no one respond this point in my previous post?)”
    Religion, per se, is not anti-science. ‘Religion’ is just a soubriquet used to describe this cultural phenomenon.”}]

    Hi Scifi 1.
    I have explained “my definition” of religion (that I am prepared to defend. I accept your above and most of what follows. (This is not a self-contradiction, I have already said I am not here to defend the bible.)

    [{So we must look at the texts, perhaps, as the next step. Here is where the waters muddy somewhat. Were you to pick apart the Bible, Koran, Torah, Granth Sahib etc, you would not find any overt call to combat ‘science’ (not a word that existed as we use it in those days). What you WILL find is plenty of request and requirement that you adhere to a deity’s word and that word alone. So what are adherents to this word to do, then, when some upstart declares that the holy book – I will use ‘bible’ from now on, for brevity – is in error?
    What should these people do when informed that the very basis of life on this planet is fundamentally at odds with the account(s) that form the foundation of their belief?}]

    Accept that which convicts you and challenge that which does not!

    scifi [{The either acquiesce to the new intelligence and its ‘veracity’ or they fundamentalise and fight back. They become ‘anti-science’ to begin with. Not all. History is littered with pre and post Darwin scientists who also profess religious ‘faith’. Because so much of what we rely on nowadays is as a result of ‘science’, it is difficult to negate it.
    But now the ‘fundies’ are openly anti-science. They don’t deny it. They pervert it. Young earth creationism and ‘Intelligent’ Design are two ends of the same shit-covered stick. These people snidely take on the veneer of applying scientific method to their claims then, knowingly, pressurise and lobby to negate science teaching to our children. }]

    Now, you have a problem!! You see, and I am not agreeing with the YEC. However, as soon as you invite people to think, you risk the possibility that they might disagree with you.
    Who they are, how they say it (abusive or not) and whatever their motivation or bias, does not deny them the right to disagree. It may be irritating but you should expect it and engage it. (I am sure that the pope is irritated by RD).

    scifi[{Look at Behe, Dembski et al. Their claims about irreducible complexity in bacterial flagellum were roundly and comprehensively, scientifically disproved.]

    Please forgive me for adopting a devils’ advocate stance. I understand that by “disproved” you mean that parts of the bacterial flagellum was found to have been performing functionally differently in different cells. This shows a problem with a “God of the gaps” argument. I think it stems from a statement of Darwin himself that if something that could not have evolved by natural processes then that would prove evolution impossible.

    Well is this true? Is evolution falsifiable? Now because of the degenerate flagellum parts you declare irreducible complexity no longer a valid attack. In other words you will swallow the belief that any thing can evolve because it is here now.

    scifi [When this happens, a scientist scraps the work and starts anew, taking on board the criticisms and corrections to perfect or waste-bin their hypotheses. These charlatans did neither. They continue, with the assistance of many religious organisations and individuals, to attempt the perversion of childhood education. Not with science, but with religion. There is no ‘science’ left for them. ]

    So evolution IS an unfalsifiable fact?

    Further, “science” tends not to waste-bin hypotheses. It goes into outrage etc. and dismissal etc until it is undeniable or the opposition is silenced. (Your referring to them as “charlatans” and the use of words are “perversion” are a case in point.) Even if it is undeniable that theories fail scientists will tend to “tinker” with the models rather than scrap them
    .
    I think the “charlatans” have suggested that we should “teach the controversy.” The “true scientist” response is that “there is no controversy” is dismissal of these people. What are you afraid of? Why was I taught (in a Catholic school) that the fossil record “proves” evolution. Why did I have to find out about stasis and punctuated evolution from these “charlatans?” It seems that you are censoring them. Are you scared that the children might embrace their “perversion?” Surely your arguments for evolution are strong enough?

    RD claims that evolution is as “proven as gravity.” I have never, teaching gravity in the class, felt the compulsion to a support my lessons with “this is as proven as evolution.”

    scifi [This is ‘anti-science’ – against science. Science is specific about its requirements. Evidence. Proof. Repeatability. Robustness. Inquisitiveness.
    Which brings me to your next, albeit tongue-in-cheek, point.
    “Believers can think freely, perhaps it is materialists/determinists who can’t. ;P”
    [Sorry sport – believers more often than not don’t think freely. They’ve stopped ‘thinking’ and accepted doctrine as a guiding force. Worse, many submerge themselves in dogma (you should meet my in-laws!!). They CAN think freely. They choose not to. They have discovered the answer and believe they need look no more. I see this all around me.
    They purposely decry or attempt to restrict the lives and education of others, and, when challenged, whine and moan about others not being open-minded! Ohhh, the hubris!!]

    This is an anecdotal opinion. My point is philosophical: If there is no God, and he has had not had ANYTHING (emphasis –not shouting) to do with your intelligence and all you are is a bunch of neurons firing in deterministic scientific repeatable fashion. How can you trust your own reason? There has been NO intelligence in the assembly of your neurons. You have no free will to think act or change your mind, you are just running brain software programmed by uncaring unintelligent evolutionary forces and your random life experiences.

    [{Sadly, there ARE many materialists and determinists who have stopped thinking. They have accepted a view and refuse to consider alternatives (AGW denial would be a case in point). There are many atheists who wish to expunge religion as an evil, redundant meme. As a lover of history, I fear this methodology as it would, I believe inevitably, Stalinise the cultural history of humanity. }]

    Thank you for acknowledging part of my argument. I hope you find me equally fair, but of course I am here arguing with someone with a different world view. Perhaps, as I suggested with AL, it doesn’t matter in the end, as long as we can agree the way forward.

    [{My wish is that science, rationalism and the absolute wonder and joy of discovering the truths about ourselves and the universe in which we live will see the eroding of religion as a cultural and psychological crutch. To do this, we must keep thinking; critically, rationally, scientifically. We must enrich and nourish through art, literature and music. We must discuss, openly and robustly and maintain healthy scepticism so that we do not stagnate and stifle thought and expression.
    I hope what I’ve written has struck a chord.
    Speaking of which, I’m off for some much needed guitar practice.}]

    Yes, but the religious search for purpose and meaning in the universe will probably never disappear. And may be the truth.

    The RD universe of “blind pitiless indifference” may not be the reality. What a loss for those that don’t see it, in that case.

    I too play the guitar, that part about striking a chord, “struck a cord.”

    Happy melodies,
    Tony

    • I’m not going to attempt to step into this great debate you guys have going on, but there is one statement above that I had to pull out and say a few words about.

      “Now, you have a problem!! You see, and I am not agreeing with the YEC. However, as soon as you invite people to think, you risk the possibility that they might disagree with you.
      Who they are, how they say it (abusive or not) and whatever their motivation or bias, does not deny them the right to disagree. It may be irritating but you should expect it and engage it.”

      This is absolute truth! We may disagree about many things but the reality is stated above. “As soon as you invite people to think, you risk the possibility that they might disagree with you.” “It may be irritating but you should expect it and engage it.” This is priceless. We each are in our own place on this journey. We each have grappled with issues and developed a set of ‘beliefs’. There are many other areas where we’ve either not addressed yet or we’re in process. Because of these dynamics, friction will occur. This friction shouldn’t be fearful to us or be shunned by us. We should allow it, even embrace it for this friction causes us each to think deeper, to evaluate our position and at times see things a bit more clearly.

      You all are causing me to think! (Sometimes so much that my head hurts!) It’s good to think! It’s good to flesh out our positions in healthy debate. Thinking = Growing! I personally want to grow. I’ve lived too many years believing what I was told and then spoon feeding them to others. The greatest thing about where I am now is the absolute thrill to THINK!

      One last note, (I’ll date myself with this one) I’m enjoying reading your comments as I listen to my XM radio playing the greatest hits from the 70′s and 80′s. The sad part is that I know the lyrics to every song!

      ~Lynn

      • Oh that I could remember the lyrics like I used to!!

        Off topic but I’m always interested – any particular artists or bands that rate as faves, Lynn (and others)?

      • scifi1, I guess I have an eclectic taste in music. I like mostly rock, pop and some country. Faves…the Eagles, Creed, Rascal Flats, Van Halen (mainly the Sammy Hagar time), Journey (all time fave), some Queen, Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, of course the guitar guys John Mayer, Keith Urban and BB King! I guess that covers most of them. I’m not into rap or very much R&B. I did listen to a few hair bands, Bon Jovi, Poison.

        Kinda all over the map :)

    • Tony D – much to discuss here. I am, unfortunately, pretty busy for the next few days, but I would like to get back to you on this.

      I beg your patience.

      • No probs. I can’t afford the time either. I will try to respond to everyone, but may disappear at times. If I bow out, I will bow out graciously.

        I am also guilty of tenacity!

    • “This is an anecdotal opinion. My point is philosophical: If there is no God, and he has had not had ANYTHING (emphasis –not shouting) to do with your intelligence and all you are is a bunch of neurons firing in deterministic scientific repeatable fashion. How can you trust your own reason? There has been NO intelligence in the assembly of your neurons. You have no free will to think act or change your mind, you are just running brain software programmed by uncaring unintelligent evolutionary forces and your random life experiences.”

      I apologize for butting in on your conversation with Lynn but, I just had to respond to the one isolated paragraph you wrote and I hope I’m not taking your observation out of context. 

      I would have to say philosophically, that your description of how nature brought you into this universe bretty much on the money. You are exactly what you said we are and the answer to your question is no, you cannot trust your own reason. 

      When you say NO  ”intelligence” I assume you are not referring to a living entity.  The brain software you speak off is the key to the enigma. This operating system comes to you complete with a 200,000 year proven performance record developed through our secret evolutionary process guaranteeing state of the art performance through DNA encoding. The package provided comes complete with all the latest upgrades to hardware peripherals and sensory scanners plus multiple hard drives to accommodate immediate expansion.
      WARNING! Full and constant programming is required to accommodate the evolution of this product. 

      We are but a product of our stored memory. The emotional/instinct hard drive comes equipped with multiple survival programs designed to guide us through life’s perils and aid us in making observed decision concerning our future survival.

      As  individuals we are powerless and probably would already be extinct unlike some solitary species. However, as a group sharing our random life experiences we have proven to be a highly intelligent dominant force in the universe. “This is when we can almost trust our own reason.” It is in this environment that we excel as a species.  We need to find alternate environments to survive and excel  in.

      Intelligence comes from nature, not in the form of any religious tenet but, through evolution. This intelligence is far beyond what we can now comprehend but, through evolution and the study of nature we will eventually find the answers, if we survive long enough. The universe is evolving in the same way and  is but a product of these random life experiences throughout the universe.

      • @AL

        [“This is an anecdotal opinion… … your mind, you are just running brain software programmed by uncaring unintelligent evolutionary forces and your random life experiences.”]

        AL [I apologize for butting in on your conversation with Lynn but, I just had to respond to the one isolated paragraph you wrote and I hope I’m not taking your observation out of context.]

        Hello Al,
        You are hardly butting in! May I say that your answer is ‘top drawer.’ At least, in terms of your world view. Made me pause! ;)

        AL[ I would have to say philosophically, that your description of how nature brought you into this universe bretty much on the money. You are exactly what you said we are and the answer to your question is no, you cannot trust your own reason.]

        Thank you.

        [When you say NO ”intelligence” I assume you are not referring to a living entity. The brain software you speak off is the key to the enigma. This operating system comes to you complete with a 200,000 year proven performance record developed through our secret evolutionary process guaranteeing state of the art performance through DNA encoding. The package provided comes complete with all the latest upgrades to hardware peripherals and sensory scanners plus multiple hard drives to accommodate immediate expansion.
        WARNING! Full and constant programming is required to accommodate the evolution of this product.
        We are but a product of our stored memory. The emotional/instinct hard drive comes equipped with multiple survival programs designed to guide us through life’s perils and aid us in making observed decision concerning our future survival.
        As individuals we are powerless and probably would already be extinct unlike some solitary species. However, as a group sharing our random life experiences we have proven to be a highly intelligent dominant force in the universe. “This is when we can almost trust our own reason.” It is in this environment that we excel as a species. We need to find alternate environments to survive and excel in.
        Intelligence comes from nature, not in the form of any religious tenet but, through evolution. This intelligence is far beyond what we can now comprehend but, through evolution and the study of nature we will eventually find the answers, if we survive long enough. The universe is evolving in the same way and is but a product of these random life experiences throughout the universe.]

        Again Al, an excellent response, but it raises more questions.
        In your world view, natural selection cares not what/how you think/reason. It “cares” only that your reasoning improves your survival/reproduction. It cares not that you can understand the big questions. It cares not if your right or wrong, only that the selfish gene survives.

        If you are just a jumble of neurons firing according to the laws of physics – are you free?
        Do you feel free?
        Are you responsible?
        Tony D

        I will get back to your more verbose post, but it is so verbose give me time.

      • Tony D,
        Take all the time you require, new friend, I am sure there will be many questions.
        To answer a few of your most recent questions,
        1. Are you free?
        Ans: We are all free agents in the universe, free to vie for our personal survival.
        2. Do you feel free?
        Ans: My most liberating thoughts come from searching and finding answers to life’s mysteries. One may, and has, describe the freedom as that feeling afforded to spiritual awakening.
        3. Are you responsible?
        Ans: We are singularly responsible for our own survival but, projectedly we are also responsible for the survival of humanity.

  48. I agree with your take on this one Lynn. Such folk can watch and learn without interjecting abusive, pointless drivel into a decidedly intelligent conversation. It’s not decree, it’s just good common sense.

  49. It’s amazing how many argumentative free minds play guitar. I have been pointlessly strumming my Martin D28 for a quarter century now. With Lynn in our group we could “spiritually” rival the Beatles or Stones. ;)

    • Martin D28, nice. I have a Taylor 714ce that has honestly been what I worship for many years now! Do any of you guys sing lead vocals? I have decent background vocals and can sing lead if the key is lower. (D, E, maybe G) I bet we could tour! That could be my way out :) What would we call ourselves? The Arguing Guitarists? LOL!

      • Hmmm – I see a problem here. We all play guitar. That might be a bit limiting (or we might be on to something!!).

        My weapons of choice right now?

        Fender Sonoran Semi-Acoustic
        Fender Stratocaster ’57 Reissue
        Hartke ‘Black’ Bass.

        I am awful at all of them (but my wife appreciates my attempts!).

        My 13 yr old whips my butt. Fingers like Hendrix and as laid back as Keith Richards!

        The bright side is – I only have one direction to go!!!!!! Woo hoo!

      • If you like the more rootsy end of rock and country, with a bit of retro thrown in, try these…

        Black Keys “El Camino” – stunning!
        Saint Jude – “Diary of a Soul Fiend” – shows how women do rock ‘n country blues so much better than most!
        The Union “Siren’s Song” – Just… woahh!!!!
        Stonefield – No album yet but 4 Aussie sisters who channel Led Zep – freaky and brilliant!

        BTW, Keith Urban’s a ‘local’ boy for us! He was born in the area where I now reside!

  51. Yes, Lynn, community is so important, and loneliness debilitating at times. There could be a space for families with children who are often alone in a community if they are not churched.

  52. Friend, while I too was a pastor and while I also came to figure out that things are not as the Bible says, I have not come to believe that there absolutely is no divine being. I respect my atheist friends and their intellectualism as I respect your position. Yet I cannot help but feel that there is something out there. Perhaps my atheist friends think this is “old-woman-ish” of me but that is where I am at. I hope we step off this world into a “divine-eternity’ when we pass even though I have no proof of it.

    But good luck with your transition from Pastoring. I am sure it will be easier than you think.

    Cheers,

    Art

  53. @AL
    Hi AL. Well you snipped a lot of the conversation there, I’ll check through and see if there is any point that I want to stress.

    [Al said: My spouse studied nursing at the Royal Infirmary in Glasgow and finished her midwifery studies at Queen Mother’s. But, I digress.
    Human disputes may always be with us but, the abomination of war should be eradicated from the psyche of humanity. Most (if not all) wars in human history have been needlessly fought for God and Country. If you arbitrarily remove both the absolutes of God and the borders of Country, it stands to reason that the removal of war would naturally follow. ]

    So how will you eradicate ‘God and Country?’ Surely not by an atheist jihad?

    [Violent civil uprisings are not designed as war. They are the manifestation of human exasperation against tyrannous government controls usually supported by some erroneous religious decree supporting the benefit of the few. The legality of violence in humanity should be relegated only to “credible” arguments of self defense or extreme mental torture, which you probably could argue if something should befall me at this point in our discussion. ]

    Your government will be global? You will unite all people across the world? You will unite us all under an atheist banner in and all genders, all races, all faiths will see the justice in your call? Your government will be by the people for the people. Wealth will be shared “equally” or if not equally then fairly. Because you have “eradicated God” and “eradicated Country” there will be no resistance. Your government of true thinking atheists will not be corrupted (unlike those evil religious). There will be no problems with disputes, because they will be handled with “reason.” And who could fail to see the logic in your reason?

    If you can achieve that, I’ll sign up, oh just a minute…. What will you do with the catholics like my mother? I might sign up if there is tolerance but, I will not join your war when you try to bring the middle east, china, north korea, America to heel.

    [Charity is not a religious tenet. Otherwise the church in Rome, or elsewhere, would not be as opulent. Charity extends directly from deep rooted instincts for survival of the species. Religion has once more usurped the credits of the human instincts toward helping each other as religious doctrine. Charity would be better served in the public realm of government mandate than left to sate church coffers. (Sweden, Norway) Church communities are all members of a larger community that would survive and flourish (probably more) regardless of religious doctrine.]

    So when charity is done by the church it is still evil and tainted?

    [Hitler was born into a Catholic family and was indoctrinated with the lie as all good Catholics. He became a lapsed Catholic after childhood but publicly promoted a positive Christianity, purged of Judaism and instilled with Nazi philosophy. His confused sense of warped Christian values may have driven him to his madness against the Jews and thirst for power.]

    I will let someone answer this more eloquently than me. Hitler, the German Catholics, Lutherans were not following the teachings of the church. (The Athiests, I don’t know. Your morality is relative.) – Joke! I’m sure most atheists are appalled at Nazism.

    —-“You are right that Hitler did mention Christianity many times in his writings. He paid Christianity a lot of lip service in Mein Kampf, and he claimed to be a Christian. But Hitler’s secretary, Martin Bormann, also declared that “National Socialism [Nazism] and Christianity are irreconcilable” and Hitler didn’t squawk too much about it. Similarly, Hermann Rauschning, a Hitler associate, said, “One is either a Christian or a German. You can’t be both.” In addition, Hitler declared Nazism the state religion and the Bible was replaced by Mein Kampf in the schools. You really want confusion? Randy Alley, one of my best WWII history sources, noted that the SS were supposedly forbidden to believe in God–yet the military’s belt buckles said “Gott mit uns” (“God is with us”)!”
    url: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christian

    AL[I do see a case for your fear of basic animal instincts controlling human moral conduct. However, the complexity of the moral psyche of any species is directly proportional to the evolved intelligence, physical environment and knowledge base of the particular species. We are definitely higher life forms with superior intellect and our strong moral values are not tethered to any religious absolutes. The Human moral psyche would have evolved with our technology and empirical knowledge if it had not been hijacked by deceitful religious doctrine.]

    What about the lessons of the Stanford prison experiment?
    Religion did not feature in that. It had echoes of Lord of the flies!

    Tell people there is no God. Morality is relative. In reality there is no good and evil. Christians are evil liars. Watch what happens.

    Actually, it is, in all respect, quite scary.

    AL[I know my tenacity must be a burden on your time. It is difficult for you to deflect all blame from religion when the lie is finally revealed to the light of truth. Just remember; “The truth is out there” and not in ancient scripture.]

    No, MY tenacity is a burdon on my time.

    You ignored the following;

    “Yes religion has been hijacked, but you aren’t trying to tell me that Lynn’s Sunday homily is more evil to the Psyche than Neo nazi propaganda? C’mon? Really?”

    • Tony D. First and foremost I am not passing judgement or trying to insult anyone, especially Lynn, she has enough on her plate. Forgive my insensitivity. I am not of your country and failed to immediately recognize the huge scar Hitler left on your psyche along with the rest of the world. It is still fresh in our memories. Again I apologize, no offense. Many good Canadians were lost in Dieppe and Normandy.
      I am just drawing analogies and suggesting conclusions for you to accept or reject. I will not apologize for my equal, deep rooted contempt for all mindless leaders who directly or indirectly practice and promote human mental/physical bondage and human carnage. Constantine was no different, just a lot smarter. His human carnage still plagues the psyche of humanity in a more subtle, Machiavellian manner.
      I will respond to your post if you wish when cooler heads prevail, if Lynn so permits.

      • Hi AL

        Al Garnier
        [Tony D. First and foremost I am not passing judgement or trying to insult anyone, especially Lynn, she has enough on her plate. Forgive my insensitivity. I am not of your country and failed to immediately recognize the huge scar Hitler left on your psyche along with the rest of the world. It is still fresh in our memories. Again I apologize, no offense. Many good Canadians were lost in Dieppe and Normandy.

        I am just drawing analogies and suggesting conclusions for you to accept or reject. I will not apologize for my equal, deep rooted contempt for all mindless leaders who directly or indirectly practice and promote human mental/physical bondage and human carnage. Constantine was no different, just a lot smarter.
        His human carnage still plagues the psyche of humanity in a more subtle, Machiavellian manner.
        I will respond to your post if you wish when cooler heads prevail, if Lynn so permits]

        Again, AL, I am not offended, but I speak directly. It was me that introduced the Nazis as a concept of evil. For sake of clarity, if I find what you say offensive I will say so, and why. In truth though, this line of the conversation is turning political, and I don’t see, personally great fruit in that.
        Peace
        Tony

    • Tony D,  I have taken literary license in editing the first two paragraphs of your response to me as reference in my response to you. Please, carefully note the changes.

      So, we will eradicate ‘God’s absolutes and Country borders.’ Surely not by a utilitarian jihad but, by installing representatives sympathetic to our cause, gradual education of the public through political debate, mass media and peaceful demonstration. We require regulation of world finance for more equal distribution of global wealth and resources toward human sustainability. Redirecting of industrial  government contracts toward support for renewable fuels and space exploration vs. weapons, oil and war. Meanwhile, appealing to human sanity and science for global cooperation in securing sufficient food and shelter for all humanity, not  just the privileged. We can push for a more active, veto free United Nations with teeth to gradually bite into government & religious tyranny, regional disparity and human inequality. We can also appeal to religious leaders to adopt a more human survival friendly approach to deity. A God who has mercy on those poor souls left here in religious hell on earth. It has to happen or the bloodshed will continue as humanity’s true immortality wanes.

      Our government will be global. We will unite all people across the world. We will unite us all under an altruistic banner and all genders, all races, all faiths will see the justice in our call. Our government will be by the people for the people. Wealth and resources will be shared “equally” or if not equally then fairly. Because we have “eradicated Gods absolutes  and “eradicated the borders of Country” there will be peace on earth. Our government of true thinking altruists will not be corrupted ( like the bondage of those deceptive religions). There will be problems with disputes but, they will be handled with “reason”, forgiveness and understanding. And who could fail to see the much needed humanity in our reason? We can start with an absolute separation between church and state. One should not influence the other.

      There will be no abomination of war in a free thinking world when we shed the shackles of religious mental tyranny. Your catholic mother will be well cared for and supported toward her personal self determination. The self serving attitudes and corruption of most world governments will be focused under the same spotlight of accountability and truth. No free thinker would fight or die for a mindless, greedy purposes while there remains a remote chance of peace and conciliation. Instead of Big Brother watching us, we will be watching Big Brother.

      Charity is modestly organized, practiced and financed through opulent church coffers, though the church is all to willing to glean any credit and profit for this important work.  An overwhelming amount of the charitable work and fund raising is volunteered or directly financed by the hard working, humanitarian parishioners and general public. Even religion cannot pervert human charity. No offense to the unselfish obvious had work of honest, “human” clergy. Lynn

      Lutheran, Catholic, Anglican, etc. stop deflecting efforts toward true enlightenment on religious doctrine and accept its eventual eradication. The world knows all too well the religiously coined phrase of “evil” applied to atrocities stemming from the systemically induced, amendable sickness of the human psyche. Without religion the collective psyche and morality of humanity would finally be afforded healing and palpable free growth into maturity; your joke was in poor taste.

      The poorly conducted Stanford prison experiment exploited an obvious conclusion already evidenced in humanity. “There is a total void of intelligent morality in any “master/slave” relationship within the advanced human psyche.” Arrogance, degradation and despair are the end result of all human participation. Religion was not featured but, it did play a part when clergy was introduced.

      I have a strong suspicion that if they were to discover the lie of Christianity, except for stringent moral Christian fundamentalists, most “believers” would first feel cheated, then heave a collective sigh of relief for their reprieve from everlasting damnation. Unfortunately, a lot may seek revenge on their religious torturers. Christians are not liars, they are good moral humans, Christianity is the insidious LIE.  Remember religion hijacked the human psyche not any belief to the contrary. 

      Perhaps a more poignant tasteless joke to relieve the tension;
      A small town’s troublemaker runs into a minister on the street, who starts lecturing him about his evil ways. The bad man nods and murmurs agreement over and over, until at last the preacher concludes. “Well then, you’ve seen the errors of your life?”
      “Yes,” the man replies.
      “And you’ll change?”
      “Yes, I shall.”
      “You’ll be a better man?”
      “Certainly, I will.”
      “And you’ll give up drinking, womanizing, and I’ll see you in church on Sunday?”
      At which point the man says, “Hold on, Reverend. You just crossed the line from preaching into meddling.”

      May the grace of nature widen your path in life.

      • Hi AL,

        Need time to respond to this wordy post, but cannot ignore this.

        AL{…”your joke was in poor taste.”…}

        Apologies, I did not intend offence, nobody here, athiest, agnostic, christian or whatever has suggested that the holocaust was anything but “evil” in most people’s definition.

        I am justly rebuked and will be more careful with my humour.
        Tony

      • Hi Tony,
        It was more your question of atheist’s relative morality than anything of Nazi evil. (over reaction) Suffice it to say there is little love lost for Hitler or despots like him, though I belive them to be victims as well. We are going to have to get past the niceties and get directly to our base arguments, which I feel we have to this point. I am Canadian and tend to say sorry a lot. Ignore it and I will endeavor to ignore perceived “digs”, which are all part of the conversation (keeps it on the edge), and get directly to the point. The conversation is more important than the niceties or thin skinned perceptions. Glad we’re still on speaking terms.

  54. Al Garnier[Tony D,
    Take all the time you require, new friend, I am sure there will be many questions.
    To answer a few of your most recent questions,
    1. Are you free?
    Ans: We are all free agents in the universe, free to vie for our personal survival.
    2. Do you feel free?
    Ans: My most liberating thoughts come from searching and finding answers to life’s mysteries. One may, and has, describe the freedom as that feeling afforded to spiritual awakening.
    3. Are you responsible?
    Ans: We are singularly responsible for our own survival but, projectedly we are also responsible for the survival of humanity.]

    Hi Al

    Well, far be it from me to “out” you, but yours is a curious sort of atheism.

    Your talk of Cosmic consciousness. Your belief in a moral code in DNA. Your belief that you are a free agent in the universe.
    Smells more like deism, certainly dualism (like me!) ;)

    • Hi Tony,

      I consider myself a pragmatist, “Charles S. Peirce & William James”. What IS, is. Anything is possible in nature but, requires cognitive proof.

      Instinct and cognitive ability is “virtual” memory (vm) existing in  the DNA code of the animal’s Operating System (OS). Animal minds are constantly bombarded with information from all their sensory inputs and governed by the “OS”. The “OS” processes all information using accepted data for immediate action through comparison with the “vm” basic coding in the species DNA. 

      If the data enhances the specific parameters of the “vm” through trial and error, it will store this data for future reference toward the animal’s biological functioning plus interaction with it’s environment and other biological life forms. If not, the data is discarded. This tried and proven data stored in the “vm” is then engrained in the “vm” of the animal’s DNA coding and combined with a compatible partner DNA code to produce a prodigy with the combined, proven “vm” of both donors. (evolution through natural selection)

      This “vm” is instrumental in forming cognitive conclusions detrimental to the animal’s survival. The “vm” needs to expand from its basic set of instructions in order for the entity to evolve in instinct,  intelligence and morality.  If you restrict the parameters of the “vm” (religion or any other false information) the evolution of the “vm” ( instinct, morality & intelligence) is corrupted and  restricted by those parameters.

      Duality exists in all of nature. In religious vernacular, “evil vs good” or “yin vs yang”. In processor language it is binary “on vs off”. The animal equivalent would be “reason vs emotion”.

      • P.S. I was never proficient in the religious contexts and probably got the relationship wrong. I should have said “good vs evil” in a relevant context.

  55. Hi AL,
    (And anyone else following this thread)

    AL[Tony D, I have taken literary license in editing the first two paragraphs of your response to me as reference in my response to you. Please, carefully note the changes.]

    This is a little irregular, but if you like, as long as you don’t tag my name to it! (Which you haven’t)

    AL[So, we will eradicate ‘God’s absolutes and Country borders.’ Surely not by a utilitarian jihad but, by installing representatives sympathetic to our cause, gradual education of the public through political debate, mass media and peaceful demonstration. We require regulation of world finance for more equal distribution of global wealth and resources toward human sustainability. Redirecting of industrial government contracts toward support for renewable fuels and space exploration vs. weapons, oil and war. Meanwhile, appealing to human sanity and science for global cooperation in securing sufficient food and shelter for all humanity, not just the privileged. We can push for a more active, veto free United Nations with teeth to gradually bite into government & religious tyranny, regional disparity and human inequality. We can also appeal to religious leaders to adopt a more human survival friendly approach to deity. A God who has mercy on those poor souls left here in religious hell on earth. It has to happen or the bloodshed will continue as humanity’s true immortality wanes.
    Our government will be global. We will unite all people across the world. We will unite us all under an altruistic banner and all genders, all races, all faiths will see the justice in our call.]

    Good luck with that, but what if they don’t? What if they resist?

    AL [ Our government will be by the people for the people. Wealth and resources will be shared “equally” or if not equally then fairly. Because we have “eradicated Gods absolutes and “eradicated the borders of Country” there will be peace on earth. Our government of true thinking altruists will not be corrupted ( like the bondage of those deceptive religions). There will be problems with disputes but, they will be handled with “reason”, forgiveness and understanding. And who could fail to see the much needed humanity in our reason?]

    What if they don’t?

    AL [We can start with an absolute separation between church and state. One should not influence the other.]

    I actually agree with this, but what if you meet resistance?

    [There will be no abomination of war in a free thinking world when we shed the shackles of religious mental tyranny.]

    I have persistently maintained that religion is not a major factor in war, it has at times been a factor. Here is what the bbc war audit said:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3513709.stm
    “The War Audit says that although armed conflicts may take on religious overtones, their genesis invariably lies in factors such as ethnicity, identity, power struggles, resources, inequality and oppression – and one factor is often exacerbated by another.
    It is often suggested that there has been a sharp rise in religiously motivated conflict.
    But the authors of the War Audit say there have been very few genuinely religious wars in the past century.

    The Israel-Arab wars from 1948 to the present day are often seen as wars over religion.
    In fact, they say, they have been about nationalism, self-defence or the liberation of territory.”

    AL[Your catholic mother will be well cared for and supported toward her personal self determination.]

    Thank you, She is 73. A genuine friendly, caring woman and really no threat to anyone.

    AL[The self serving attitudes and corruption of most world governments will be focused under the same spotlight of accountability and truth. No free thinker would fight or die for a mindless, greedy purposes while there remains a remote chance of peace and conciliation. Instead of Big Brother watching us, we will be watching Big Brother.
    Charity is modestly organized, practiced and financed through opulent church coffers, though the church is all to willing to glean any credit and profit for this important work. An overwhelming amount of the charitable work and fund raising is volunteered or directly financed by the hard working, humanitarian parishioners and general public. Even religion cannot pervert human charity. No offense to the unselfish obvious had work of honest, “human” clergy. Lynn.
    Lutheran, Catholic, Anglican, etc. stop deflecting efforts toward true enlightenment on religious doctrine and accept its eventual eradication.]

    What if they don’t?

    AL[The world knows all too well the religiously coined phrase of “evil” applied to atrocities stemming from the systemically induced, amendable sickness of the human psyche. Without religion the collective psyche and morality of humanity would finally be afforded healing and palpable free growth into maturity; your joke was in poor taste.]

    Again sorry, but I do maintain that an athiest can decide for themselves wither or not Nazism is wrong. A christian cannot!

    AL[The poorly conducted Stanford prison experiment exploited an obvious conclusion already evidenced in humanity. “There is a total void of intelligent morality in any “master/slave” relationship within the advanced human psyche.” Arrogance, degradation and despair are the end result of all human participation. Religion was not featured but, it did play a part when clergy was introduced.]

    The role of the clergy in the prison was absolutely minor. If I am right the pastor met with the prisoners and asked them “Well son, what are you doing to get out of here?”

    AL[ have a strong suspicion that if they were to discover the lie of Christianity, except for stringent moral Christian fundamentalists, most “believers” would first feel cheated, then heave a collective sigh of relief for their reprieve from everlasting damnation. Unfortunately, a lot may seek revenge on their religious torturers. Christians are not liars, they are good moral humans, Christianity is the insidious LIE. Remember religion hijacked the human psyche not any belief to the contrary.]

    In spite of my statement that I am not here to defend the church, I feel compeiied to say that not all see it like that. Least of all the religious flock themselves.

    [ Perhaps a more poignant tasteless joke to relieve the tension;
    A small town’s troublemaker runs into a minister on the street, who starts lecturing him about his evil ways. The bad man nods and murmurs agreement over and over, until at last the preacher concludes. “Well then, you’ve seen the errors of your life?”
    “Yes,” the man replies.
    “And you’ll change?”
    “Yes, I shall.”
    “You’ll be a better man?”
    “Certainly, I will.”
    “And you’ll give up drinking, womanizing, and I’ll see you in church on Sunday?”
    At which point the man says, “Hold on, Reverend. You just crossed the line from preaching into meddling.”]

    Ha ha! :D

    AL [[May the grace of nature widen your path in life.]

    Thank you.

    Well AL, I disagree in a few areas with you above, but I don’t see a great way forward in discussing politics in this forum, but if you want to come back at me on any of my comments I will continue.
    I maintain that my original point about religion, by that, I mean the belief in a God, is not anti-science stands.
    Otherwise Newton would be anti-science, such a suggestion would be ridiculous to any student of physics.

    I maintain, that believers are not (all) unthinking sheep. I will admit that some don’t think deeply about their faith, however, there are those that don’t think deeply about their atheism and make wild statements like “Stephen Hawkings has proved there is no god.”

    Peace
    Tony D

    • Hi Tony,
      We seem to be getting bogged down in semantics. Your Christianity and my lack of faith should not cause this absurd 180% twist in our reason & psyche but, yet it does. You don’t see any great way forward in discussing politics and I see that we have been discussing politics all along. I do not believe Christ ever existed and you believe he did (even without proof). What are your thoughts on Gilgamesh?

      I did not say that believers were unthinking. It must take a lot of thinking in youth, especially after discovering Santa was a lie, to truly maintain a belief in the lies of religion. Believers must have to make that kangaroo leap of faith on a firm belief in immortality, not religion. Even, so called, atheists are aware of fleeting immortality, nature insists on it. It is that religious leap that makes believers sheep. It grips the psyche like a vise or “vice” and haunts every fiber of existence with the insidious lies of religious tenets.

      I do not think that a belief in god is anti-science. Everyone knows that an inexplicable life force created us, how else could we be here? God is as good an explanation as any until we discover the truth. It is these controlling, insidious lies of man-made religions that enslave the human psyche and causes most, if not all, divisiveness within humanity while destroying free thinking.

      I don’t know how Stephen Hawkings could prove there is no god if all the religions of the world cannot prove there is one.
      “Long may you big jib draw” a nautical sentiment.

      • One last point. In the Stanford prison experiment, did you not see the religious effects on both groups in denying the reality and validity of their contrived situation? It took an interloper to wake them all from their nightmare. The human psyche is very delicate, we are all living on the edge of madness, we should not contribute with lies.

  56. Lynn,

    I remember watching a program on TV “Tsunami: Where Was God?”

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/tsunami-where-was-god/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1
    Not available online,

    One of those difficult questions for your drawer. Mark O’Dowd asked several men of god in different faiths this question. Most answers fell short of satiisfactory, ying and yang etc, but the best answer was, in his and my opinion, by a jesuit catholic priest.

    The Tsunami was the necessary price of a smooth running universe.

    I can expand on this if you’re interested, but as an athiest, i accept that such answers are unnecessary. Their answer is clinical; It happens!! Or more crudely S**t happens.
    .
    Are you open to this kind of thing or is it off topic.
    I understand people will be coming here for support in leaving the clergy and perhaps this not the arena.

  57. Hi Tony, 

    Please view the video Catholicism, Contraception & Secular Morality – Norte Dame – Sean Faircloth.

    http://richarddawkins.net/

    Please respond.
    If your good mother is steeped in her Catholic faith, I request you not make this available to her. Truth is not meant to disillusion  or harm but, to inform the curious.

  58. Lynn,
    I believe I have monopolized your thread to the point of driving relevant commentary away though, I thoroughly enjoyed my discussions, especially with Tony D. Your thread has gotten fairly quiet in responses. As Tony correctly observed, my style of communication is verbose, I would say pedantic if I were a scholarly man. I hope my input may have aided in your future decisions. I will check in from time to time to see how you and all your followers are doing. Please view the video link I posted on your thread to Tony.

  59. Hi Lynn,
    Here is a video to enlighten your path, and those of similar belief. Be sure Tony D has access to this. Lol

    Peace of mind will change the world.
    Have a great life.

    • Hi Lynn,

      Thanks for putting up with us. I said I wouldn’t disappear, but I pretty much did. While you accepted our debate, even, perhaps with interest. I regret that it was OT and I hushed up when I felt that it actually did hijack your thread.

      I wish you happiness and fulfilment in your future. I am sure that there is enough overlap in how you think and what your church teaches, that will allow you to keep your Sunday homilies in a suitable comfort zone for yourself, while you work yourself free.

      Atheism may offer ‘cold comfort’ but it offers you the freedom to question and think, that you cannot enjoy (openly) as a pastor. That alone is a great release.

      Kind regards
      and best wishes,
      Tony

  61. Hello Lynn,

    We live in the same town, so I can only imagine the drama you are having to deal with. I wish you well……

  62. Lynn,

    We live in the same city. I can only imagine the drama you are having to go through. I am not out in the public eye the way you are. I wish you well….

  63. I read this with tears building up in my eyes, mainly because I find myself questioning my faith more often as of late. I’ve always been on the conservative side of things, yet doubts have lingered and I have continued to struggle with “sin”…all the while proclaiming what I have known to be the “truth”. I feel stuck because of my commitment to the congregation I serve and I do love them and they love me, but also because of my family and how abandoning my faith and my “calling” as a pastor will effect them and how it would effect my relationship with them, I have no doubt I would lose them. Maybe this has been the primary reason I’ve started looking at other opportunities that will eventually allow me to transition out of the full time pastorate. Thank you for your words! And if you are interested I am southern baptists.

  64. I hope I’m not duplicating my reply, if so, please forgive me, I don’t know if the previous one went through. I’m a pastor in a conservative denomination (southern baptist) and I have been having doubts about my faith on and off for some time. Part of it has to do with the inherit wickedness I see in people who claim to be “Christian” and partly because of my continued struggle with “sin”. I also struggle because of my family, simply leaving my pastorate would effect us greatly financially and I have no doubt it would effect my relationship with those I love the most since I think I would probably lose them over this too. There are a lot of other things going on in my mind right now, but simply knowing I am not alone in this struggle is a breath of fresh air for me. Thank you for sharing your story and I look forward to visiting here more often.

  65. Teresa,

    Heard you on a 3 week old NPR podcast today. You are amazing. Tremendous courage. Incredible honesty.

    I can relate in a lot of ways to your story. PK, Baptist background, an entire life built around conservative evangelical Christianity, 10 years of personal agnosticism, the gnawing feeling that I’m living a lie, and finally the public announcement that “I don’t want to be a Christian anymore”. It was the most freeing moment of my life at that point – finally some integrity! And a lot of fear. Stepping into the unknown with no support is scary. It’s like the entire foundation of life has shifted.

    I commend you. The God I believe in is very proud of you for not believing in God! (Wrap your head around that :) )

    I applaud you Teresa!

  66. I appreciate your story. It has been a comfort to me in my own de-conversion process. I lost my faith because of the amount of suffering in this world, and the huge loss of life in natural disasters. If there is a loving God, why does this happen? Only good explanation I can come up is that there is no god. I know I have to leave Church, but not sure if I am ready for that.

    • Atkegar, I too lost my faith partly because of natural disasters, specifically an F5 tornado that went through my city. It forced me to give up on my image of God – actually to change my image of God. But I haven’t given up on Christianity, I have completely redefined it. Authors like Marcus Borg, John Shelby Spong, John Dominic Crossan, Brian McLaren, and Father Richard Rohr have been instrumental for me in redefining God, Jesus, the Bible, etc. I agree with Lynn and had to give up on God as I understood him. The God of popular American Christianity doesn’t make sense to me anymore. Atheism and Agnosticism are obvious options to this supernatural God – but, like you, I wasn’t willing to completely give up on the church either. I didn’t know there was an alternative to popular Christianity other than Atheism until I read these authors. They have helped tremendously with a completely new Christian paradigm that actually makes sense to me.

  67. I noticed today that I feel really creepy when someone says they will pray for my conversion. Not annoyed only, but kind of violated. Like someone is leering at my soul, trying to possess it, whatever my soul is to me. I have been part of a “conversation” where one person is telling the rest of us that satan causes all problems and diseases and that only by believing (in her way, of course) will one be healed/saved/etc. She is adamant and quite electrifyingly angry. I see nothing in her approach that seems at all likely to convert anyone, but it is a little scary to see the complete lack of introspection.

  68. Pingback: Teresa MacBain: From Methodist Minister to Atheist Advocate

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s